User talk:Gwen Gale/archive6

More AfD fun

What, you haven't splurged your two Gulden (or anyway two Batzen) on this? -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha! I'll have you know I declined the speedy on that one! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we just differ on the man's, um, notority. -- Hoary (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew if I speedied it I'd have all kinds of notes here shrieking how he's got "coverage." Ew, I do hope his "notority" is covered. We don't want to scare the children. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Next they'll be looking up Prince Albert on Google... :-) (Came here actually to thank you for watching my page. I guess I upset another vandal) :-)  Frank  |  talk  02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request email of deleted stub Davide Marocco

Hey, you deleted stub Davide Marocco on July 4th, it was speedy deleted under section A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Apparently there's some question of his notability. Davide Marocco and another researcher Stefano Nolfi are currently doing research in AI, from a unique angle dealing with language development. I had added some material to the main AI article in which I referenced work done by Marocco... which you can find here [1].

The material was later deleted from the main AI article because of it's specific nature and the fact that the AI article is already very long and needs to be cut back. The research is important and if I find a good place for it, I will reintroduce the research.. in which case I will want the Davide Marocco stub again.... So right now the stub is not really important but I would like a copy of it, if in case, I find a good place to add how language evolution is currently being tested in AI cognisance.--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion happened because the article made no (clear) assertion of importance or significance, notability was assumed as "unknown" but the topic could be notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sid or Stu?

Only one of them got a decent girlfriend, tho. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrid! My mum told me about her! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin input

In acknowledgement of your reputation to call things as you see em, Gwen, I anticipate what would be sure to be inciteful commentary if you were to be so kind as to provide administrative input re a set of compound mergers I just proposed over at (well, of course) Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Current listings. (You're the only admin I asked, btw.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 18:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, you meant insightful I hope :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Um <blushes> yeah.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, as an editor I tend to be way neutral on political family stuff and as an admin, I'm not clear what you'd like to have input on. I'm all ears though :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd attepted a merge via fait accompli, and had envisioned folks pleased by its result while in-citing an accasional voice pist over such chutzpah. I remembered you as not necessarily a fan of such frenetics yet also your no nonsense approach with regard to examining the surest foundational realities of things (or whatever) so posted my request of you. But what happened instead was that another contributor simply immediately asked me to move my merges to a sandbox, which I did...and so my request of you now is largely maybe moot! lol. Thanks anyway!

Yes, merges can tend to be more bother than they're worth. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• An admin is gonna have to wade in here (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malik Abongo Obama), though, eventually and either specify a "keep" or "delete"----or else authorize some kind of merge.(...)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that'll wend and wind its way through :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Za'atar

Gwen,

Since you were so kind at helping to moderate Hummus, I was wondering if you could lend an ear to a discussion at Za'atar regarding inclusion of photos. Thanks! --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over the language of a label? :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

UFO Phil page re-written to conform to Wiki standards.

Yes, I re-wrote the UFO Phil page. It was deleted, allegedly, because there were no citations. I did not have time last month to read/learn the process for creating citations. So, the page got deleted. I re-created the page with the valid citations in place. Therefore the article (which was MUCH shorter and contained completely different text) was completely re-written from scratch to conform to Wiki policies.

Yet, you deleted it anyway. It seems a tad unfair.

I was not the creator of the original UFO Phil page, but had done several edits to it to ensure the facts (as I understand them) were correct.

Please replace the UFO Phil page. Thanks.

Oh, and I guess I'm a sock-puppet because I could not remember my login when I was at work, so I created a new one. Yeah, I had two accounts. No intentional deception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.54.119 (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The article was only lately deleted following an articles for deletion discussion. It was deleted again when someone tried to re-create it almost straight off. Citations as such were never the worry, the article was deleted because many editors thought the topic is not notable, owing to a lack of reliable sources anywhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the reason given prior to deletion was most certainly "lack of citations". The question on notability was only mentioned after the fact by one of the editors that voted to delete, of which there were only two.

As the rewritten page demonstrates, notability is not an issue since the included citations are from reliable sources.

In short, you may not be familiar with the subject, but that does not make it any less notable.

Your editor apparently did a Google search, didn't see anything he recognized and therefore decided the subject was not notable. Does this editor know who Doctor Demento is? Is this editor familiar with Coast to Coast AM which is one of the highest rated radio talk shows in the world? What about XM Radio? How about The Tom Green Show. UFO Phil has appeared and/or regularly appears on all of these programs and more. The list of credits is long.

Besides, since when did Wikipedia need outside sources to validate it's own articles? If everything in Wikipedia needed to be matched up and compared with another "reliable reference source" to test it's validity, then that would make Wikipedia itself redundant and obsolete. Do the editors of Encyclopedia Brittanica need to flip through Funk and Wagnall's in order to validate their own entries? Hardly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.54.119 (talk) 10:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

OR on Stranger in a Strange Land

Hi. No hurry on this, but if you get a chance, can you check out Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land#Homosexuality_and_gender_roles and take a look at Talk:Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land#Original_research_in_Homosexuality_section.3F. I'm trying to cleanup the article and I wanted to get some extra eyes on this section before I remove it to the talk page. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of that section is clearly OR. I think you can safely skive off anything which isn't directly sourced (which will leave no more than one or two sentences). Moving it to the talk page would be friendly enough, but since it's a big swath of OR I truly see no need to do that. If you'd like me to speak up on the talk page as an uninvolved admin, let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I wanted to make sure I wasn't seeing things. :) Viriditas (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You weren't seeing things :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

GFDL contributions and merged articles

Hi there. I just undeleted List of sustainability topics (U) and List of sustainability topics (V), as User:Yamakiri had merged that to List of sustainability topics without crediting User:Granitethighs. To preserve the GFDL and allow correct attribution, I undeleted. It was all a bit of a mess, and different admins treated the various speedy and PROD requests differently. I've been tidying up to make things consistent. Please don't take offence, but could you possibly check things out a bit more before deleting in future? Thanks. Any problems, please ask. (I would normally be more polite, but it has been a lot of tidying up). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sustainability topics (0-9) and here. Carcharoth (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The tag said It needs to be deleted to merge histories... and I thought that's what User:Yamakiri or someone else was going to do. You might want to follow up a bit more with User:Yamakiri? I do understand though, how much time it can take to clean up this kind of thing, thanks for letting me know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh sorry I tried to link straight to the preview, try this one and hit preview? (The tags on all of them were the same) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That bit about "deleted to merge histories" seems to be generic, and in any case, to merge the histories, you wouldn't start by deleting that page. You would delete the merge target, and then move each page in, delete it, and eventually undelete the lot of them in one go. But that would be a waste of time when the normal process is to just leave a redirect behind in the normal merge process. I tried to explain the merge process to Yamakiri, but is seems that I wasn't polite enough or something. It is possible something else upset him, but I think this was the reaction. Do you think I could have been a bit more polite? Carcharoth (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's say it, merges are a big docking pain in the neck to handle and when a volunteer, good faith editor gets a note on their user page which even hints they may have done something careless or untowards, the defense begins, which is why big docking doses of friendliness are the only way to nudge a good faith editor. As for the generic spin of the db tag, yes, it was generic, but I made the gf assumption the editor picked the tag to express his intentions. As I say, merges are a pain and most of the time, I don't even think they're worthwhile, given the GFDL worries. Lastly, thanks so much for having taken on the utterly thankless task of at least trying to clean up the wake of that mess :) Anyway I'm no fan of GFDL (CC or a twist on the FreeBSD licence is far more fit for free content) but I guess we're canny stuck with it now and we do what we can. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very sound advice. Particularly "big docking doses of friendliness are the only way to nudge a good faith editor". I'll try and remember that in future! Not quite up there with the best of the "sayings", but getting close. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Somehow, I didn't think die young stay pretty would have a helpful ring :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

about the consensus

The consensus was to put "Israeli Government banned it" only without "under an anti-terrorism law passed three days after Lehi assassinated Folke Bernadotte." - even Shabazz offered it.

The only argument was about weather to put in second paragraph, (since it already apear in Count Folke Bernadotte chapter)which even Amoruso disagreed, an

If you decide on the consensus by Shabazz, then atlist put it this way.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was commenting and acting on the overall consensus. All of this is supported by the cited sources and the text is now very clear. I know you're editing in good faith Shevashalosh but I truly think you should let this be. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that you are doing your best as well, but there are many so called "sources" out there - that do not fit wiki policy of reliable sources, and this was what we were arguing about -since my reliable sources are the zionist encyclopedia to speak the Israeli gov mind - and an existing source supported my point (oxford) - against someone saying something in the name of Israeli gov, and not the Israeli gov official publication.

yet I was willing to compromise.

by anycase, I don't see any logic not to "include" and "restore" it the way even shabazz offered it ?

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus clearly supports the edit made by User:Malik Shabazz, which is what I acted upon. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But this was before he made his compremise offer ? why were we not waiting for his response? --Shevashalosh (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What he proposed and wrote is what's in the lead now. Clearly, you don't want this in the lead at all, but consensus says otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-Write of Vanguard (Band)

Hey Gwen,

I'm new to creating an article on wiki, and I understand now the importance of referencing as a validity check. I have reliable sources documenting the content of my article and I will tag them properly (to the best of my ability).

Could I have a copy of it to work on?

Thanks so much.

VanguardMetal (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First, please read the Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest and user names, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Glen, I read the pages you referred me to and I understand your implication. Even though I go by the name VanguardMetal, as I do on many areas of the internet, my personal wikipedia account is in now way affiliated with my band as a whole. I understand that this may have been a poor choice of username.

However, I do have editing experience in sections concerning physics and philosophy; edits grammatical and also content based. I have a strong physics background, I love wikipedia and what it stands for, and I plan to contribute as much as possible for the next four years while I'm studying at the University of Chicago. I hope that I will be able to communicate the things I learn first-hand to inquiring public like me :).

It is not disallowed for an account named Vanguard Metal to edit a page called Vanguard, although I can see how it is discouraged.But I simply want to get the article up and running, as I noticed it tagged as a red article under the Vanguard disambiguation page. I will leave it alone if other people will edit it and keep it up to date; I was just really excited that it had been noted and wanted to get it rolling.

So...I don't know how you feel about that; if you're not ok with it, how do most people go about creating an article concerning themself or something they have direct affiliation with?

Thanks again madame :). VanguardMetal (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I only asked you to read those pages ;) Now, please read this page and after you've in good faith said you have done (it will only help you, if you read it carefully), I'll userfy the deleted content. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Keyscript Shorthand

Dear Gwen,

My name is Janet Cheeseman. I have been trying to write an article on Wikipedia about Keyscript Shorthand. You have deleted it twice because of blatant advertising. I am asking for another opportunity to rewrite the article. In the re-write, I intend to use only the first paragraph of the second attempt, which contains only factual information. But if you think that this first paragraph contains advertising, please inform me before the re-write.

Thanks

Janet —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassyjanek (talk • contribs) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keyscript Shorthand page

Hi Gwen,

I wrote to you about half an hour ago. Do you think the article on Keyscript Shorthand would survive the deletion process if I wrote the first paragraph only, PLUS catalogued the percentages of writing saved in the exercise passages in 'The Lightning Guide to Keyscript' which is the beginners guide, published this year? I can include this publication in the references. The results are as follows: 96 passages. 21 save less than 60% of the writing, 15 save 60% & 60 save more than 60%.

I am sorry to take up your time like this, but such feedback from you may save the article from deletion again. It is very time-consuming to compose an article, only to have it deleted. I know such articles cannot contain any advertising, but it is sometimes hard to tell whether it does or doesn't when one is after all, only stating the facts.

Thanks again,

Kind regards,

Janet Cheeseman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.132.8 (talk) 10:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC) aka Cassyjanek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassyjanek (talk • contribs) 12:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Cassyjanek (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is no. Google's only hit for the string "Lightning Guide to Keyscript" is to a page that appears to be written by you. The "Lightning Guide" appears to be published by you. If so, it is not an independent source.

When Keyscript is widely written up in authoritative, disinterested sources, it can get an article. But not before. -- Hoary (talk) 14:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Aarghh

Aarghh. -- Hoary (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, argh. The old, mossy tale, if one can't handle the sources, one starts on the editor. It is disruption... Gwen Gale (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Pictured

No problem, always fun to edit something on the main page! Bencherlite^Talk 07:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, erm, yes, that's it, I wanted to share the fun :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to remove the picture (opinions were pretty evenly divided), I don't see why we had to remove it just to make a point about editorial decisions. There are appropriate venues if Arcayne disagreed with the choice to included a related picture and removing it just further encourages the forum shopping and sensationalism that we saw last night. Just my opinion, don't really care about the image or whether it's displayed. –xenocidic (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I wasn't making a point about anything. The thread showed a strong consensus that there were zero policy worries with the issue (which I also strongly agreed with), but there was a question as to whether, editorially speaking, the picture (of an actor not costumed in the topic role) was helpful. My take on the thread was that while many editors spoke up to say there weren't any policy problems, most of them (like you) didn't care about the picture either way. Likewise with me, I didn't care, but understood how some might take the picture as being editorially out of context. Once the thread had strongly established that there were no BLP, WP policy or licensing worries, 2 or 3 editors still made it clear that for them, the picture was simply "awkward" in that context, I saw that as consensus enough and rm'd the image from the article. I would not have rm'd it if anyone had carried on arguing that it strayed from BLP, licensing or any other policy, because it did not (and I had no wish for the removal to be misunderstood). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for explaining. –xenocidic (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Something completely different (and now for)

Might this be up your street? -- Hoary (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's easy on a Unixy box and there are a jillion ways to do this kind of thing, one could use grep but I'm lazy and ever unwilling to train myself for two days learning more than the 4 or 5 grep commands I already know, so whenever I run into something like this I look for a helpful script on the Internet, like this one. If you have a Unixy box (most any spin of linux will do), it's likely going to take about 5 minutes to find what you need, try this Google search?. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! grep would show me what it was that needed to be fixed, but it wouldn't fix it (unless grep has advanced far beyond the state with which I'm fairly familiar). I'd forgotten about ancient but serviceable sed, I'm ashamed to say. Other stuff to do over the next few days, but I hope to get down to this in the weekend. -- Hoary (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shoulda said "grep with pipes" :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, yes -- but all the files are stiff with links.

The wonderful thing is how tiny this website is, and how, um, hyperlightning fast sed (etc) will be, running on hardware designed to do whatever it is that teens do these days (download and play porn movies I suppose). I wonder how many dozen mirrors of the entire website I can get on what's now the least capacious and cheapest USB flash memory available. -- Hoary (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what can be so cool about it these days and what so many website folks don't grok, clean and lean means fast and steadfast, never mind cheap and portable. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey and don't forget awk ...eek! Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI

The deleted contents of Suzanne olsson might be interesting. Sigh. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to help her, I truly did and was hoping she'd come up with any kind of source we might hang onto, if only so we could put up a stub for her :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I notice that you deleted Portal:RTÉ but forgot to delete its talk page Portal talk:RTÉ. It still appears in the assessment statistics. TIA ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That was fast. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That was luck, is all :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More Lehi stuff...

Your further help at Talk:Lehi_(group)#Category:_Jewish_Terrorism is needed. Sorry. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

While I totally agree with you that terrorism is overused, and has lost its pith, allowing the category to be applied unequally to articles across wikipedia is clear POV. I'm all for deleting these NPOV categories, or changing them drastically, and have made efforts to that effect here, here, and here with no success (and surprisingly little response at all). However, as long as it exists, I'd suggest the importance of broad NPOV on wikipedia supersedes the importance of NPOV in individual articles. Thoughts? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. You'll be happy to know I don't care one way or another and will steadfastly implement consensus if need be (it does look to me as though only one editor is against the inclusion of this cat, but please let me know if I'm wrong). Oh and yes, I'm also for skiving off these PoV cats but meanwhile we do what we can. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

August Kubizek

Dear Gwen, I am a long-time reader and first-time poster on Wikipedia. As a hobby historian, I have spent years researching Kubizek. I have also been in contact with August Kubizek's son Rudolf, who kindly provided me with copies of photographs, a family tree, and various other materials which I think could fill in a few gaps on Kubizek's bio. I have already begun to fill in the basic information, names and dates, but know practically nothing about how to go about editing the article properly.

So I thought I would contact you, hoping you could kindly keep an eye on my progress and perhaps provide me with some tips. I am hesitant to submit the photographs I was given, as I cannot rightfully claim to own the copyright, but will submit a photograph I took of his grave.

Thanks in advance for your help, Anna wilder (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)Anna wilder

Thanks! I'll be happy to help in any way I can. As for photographs, Wikipedia's image policy is rather tight. Cheers! Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection for Polly

Good idea - I don't think she's going to listen, and if she really is ten years old, it would not be very surprising. Acroterion _(talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Go Polly ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Magibon AFD

You have got to be kidding me. Sure you can have some tongue-in-cheek, but at least cite some policies/guidelines to show some semblance of process has taken place instead of treating the whole thing as a joke. Please reopen and relist the AFD as the 4 weak opinions were not adequate enough to conclude anything. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Feel free to AfD it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Interactive Data Extraction and Analysis

Why you deleted deleted "Interactive Data Extraction and Analysis" ‎00:28, 12 June 2008 and removed all discussion about it. No information in any log. What is this arbitrariness? Why marticle of ACL (ad) still on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by F2s (talk • contribs)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best,Gwen Gale (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert K. Hall (again)

I misunderstood. I thought that when you declined speedy deletion for Robert K. Hall (nationl guard officer), I would get more time. It was just deleted by another. The Americal Museum archives are open only a few hours a week, and I have not been able to get there yet. I wonder if I should bother to try again. He may just not be famous enough. Just because I wanted to know more about him does not mean that anyone else cares. Best regards Todd Jtmilesmmr (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I can put a copy of the deleted article in your userspace if you like, please let me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your knowledge / assistance requested...

Dear Ms. Gale, After reading many inputs you've made to Wikipedia (and being very impressed by them), I would like to ask for your assistance on a matter.

Topic is about A. Hitler's death in the Berlin bunker. Specifically, photos of the couch that he and Eva killed themselves on. My father is a combat vetran of WWII and I thought for his 88th birthday, I would print off a few pictures I had run across on this topic. And obviously, didn't bookmark the website and now, naturally, can't find them.

I know I had gotten to them (the link) via links from Wikipedia and I seem to recall they redirected perhaps to a Russian site (.ru), maybe(?). The link to the photo of the couch showed a Soviet soldier standing in front of the couch as another peered from behind it. The photo link wasn't directly from a main Wikipedia page, but indirectly from photos that were marked as being available for public use (or some such wording to that affect).

Is there any assistance or recommendations you could offer to locate this website again? (I have done all kinds of searches Yahoo, Goggle, Clusty, etc. etc. - all to no avail). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.240.168 (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

External links here can come and go (along with Russian websites), all I could find for you was this. If your father hasn't seen Der Untergang, get him a copy of the DVD. Although the storyline gets a few things wrong, its portrayal of the bunker complex's "look and feel" in April 1945 is, I've been told, rather spot on (as is Bruno Ganz's accent on the German language soundtrack). Gwen Gale (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Roger Stoller

• Roger W. Stoller

I dont understand who you are to decide who is a notable person...Roger Stoller worked with Buckminster Fuller. Just because you don't know about him, doesnt mean he isnt notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.171.107 (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't decide whether he was notable or not. Have you read the link at the top of this page? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Help - Question on Raw Spirit Festival

Hi I saw that you put a speedy declined on Raw Spirit Festival. No major issue but maybe you can help me understand the correct process as I patrol all the time and usually what I see and tag does get deleted (self praise is no praise) so this is just to educate me a little :-)

• I put the tag on (it was {{db-spam}} which may have been a bit off but it looked like advertising (OK it was :-))
• The creator removed the tag
• They then put a hangon in there (I dropped them a note on their talk to leave the tag which they ignored - they probably didn't even notice the new message tag to be honest -)
• The you put speedily declined in there - does this mean that it will or will not be deleted.

I don't mind either way to be honest but it annoyed me when they removed my tag (say this to someone outside the WP world and they will look for the Vodka bottle). --BustOut (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Yes, I saw all that. The editor shouldn't have taken off the tag but, when stuff like that happens, try to remember, it's only a website on the Internet :) The helpful thing about the hangon tag is that it alone will still cause the article to show up on the CSD list. Anyway, I declined speedy deletion for the article because it had an assertion of importance: ...the world’s largest healthy living, organic raw vegan festival, and is the leader in the raw food movement. Anyone can still send it to AfD, but it's not a speedy. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Skull & Serpent

• Skull and Serpent
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Skull_and_Serpent (closed, 04:43, 19 June 2006)

Deletions:

• 00:54, 10 July 2008 Gwen Gale (talk · contribs) deleted "Skull and Serpent" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page deleted via a deletion discussion)
• 04:43, 19 June 2006 King of Hearts (talk · contribs) deleted "Skull and Serpent" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skull and Serpent)

Deleting Skull & Serpent was incorrect. >>>A two year old deletion discussion is not relevant. For example, one of those posts stated that there were too few Google hits on the name--but that was two years ago, and there are many more hits now. >>>It makes a perfectly legitimate stub as it was left. Henry Bacon is a noted architect. It can be expanded if left alone for a bit.>>>The article does fit in with the series on college secret societies. So its part of a set.>>>I read your page, it doesn't apply don't tell me to read it.>>>Any Wikipedia policy that states that a two year old deletion discussion created by ten posters must be preserved inviolate is ridiculous.OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If you carefully read the link at the top of this page you'd understand why the CSD G4 was approved, even after 2 years. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the link at the top of the page as I had already said. Wandering around wikipedia doing whatever you like to other people's articles and then telling them to drudge through your own prose for clues to why you do what you do is not endearing behavior. If you read your page, you would find there is nothing there about "G4". As a matter of fact, talking to people in code is not especially useful, either. Nothing you have said addresses any of the points I have raised. it's still a valid stub, it's still a part of a larger set of articles. OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you carefully read the link at the top of this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting a legitimate article. Thank you for responding in a dismissive fashion. Thank you for not addressing any of the points I raised. Thank you for doing both things a second time. It's so rewarding having this discussion. Your comments are so constructive. I only hope my poor efforts at communication haven't slowed you in your efforts to delete whatever you see fit to by whatever criteria you think you are applying. It's things like this that make wikipedia such a wonderful place. OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't appear the acting admin is going to reverse their action based on this thread; the next route of appeal is deletion review. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we have a red-linked user with an empty talk page, limited SPA contribs and a borderline disruptive user name saying I read your page, it doesn't apply don't tell me to read it. If this user doesn't think the link at the top of this page applies to them, there is nothing I can do to help them. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I do read and heed what folks post here: I've added a section on previously AfD'd content (CSD G4). Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to get in an argument with you. I will note "...a red-linked user with an empty talk page, limited SPA contribs and a borderline disruptive user name..." In other words, you are resorting to a personal attack. That phrase mentions four elements about me as a poster, and nothing about content of what I have posted, or the content of the article. Please try observing wikipedia policies in the future. "there is nothing I can do to help them" I can tell you this, if I deleted something you wrote, and you asked me about it, I would expect that out of common courtesy, I would owe you some explanation, not reference to some obscure FAQ I had tucked away somewhere. You have done NOTHING to explain why you deleted anything except three or four references to some boilerplate you have. That is rude, in any country on the globe. And my user name is NOT borderline disruptive, it just happens to be a good deal more creative than yours. Try WP:Civil, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You never did tell me if you read this page. It's not a FAQ and any Wikipedia policy page could be called boilerplate (the way you use the word, anyway). Have you read this page? Do you still believe/think the information it contains doesn't apply to you, seemingly because it wasn't typed out word for word, all for you? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, "I read your page, it doesn't apply, don't tell me to read it." OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC) "I read the link at the top of the page as I had already said." OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC) Otherwise, this is not getting anywhere, and I am not going follow along after it.OoooooNaaNaNaOoooNana (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

third opinion pelese

Hello Gale, hope you are well.

I reverted a series of edits by Special:Contributions/Javaeu. They've invented something really special, and feel the world should know here and here and he does not think he's breaking WP:EL. I feel our conversation has reached an impasse. Could you provide a third opinion/ Thanks. Dlohcierekim 17:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You can easily cite Wikipedia:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest for this, moreover given the editor has disclosed it's their business along with the wording of the link. I've left a note on the editor's talk page, let me know how it goes. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

well I have read the article and since I am aviliated with the invention

I ask you to post the link and a article page for me since you and the other guy deleated my contribution, I guess there are many rules and to get through all of them I do not have the resources what can I do to get my links back on the relevant pages ? signing -> Javaeu (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please wait until your company becomes notable and someone else adds the link. You may not have understood that Wikipedia is not a platform for links to draw visitors to your company's website. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Nethercutt Foundation

• The George Nethercutt Foundation

You deleted the Nethercutt Foundation article before time for sufficient discussion. This is an organization headed by a very prominent American politition. The foundation recruits applicants from many college campuses and has taken students to Washinton to meet with senior members of the House of Representative, US Senate, and the armed forces.--Counsel (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Novi Zagreb - istok

When you deleted the copied article, you apparently forgot to delete the talk page. Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok (the talk page of the deleted copy) does not contain any useful information apart from some banners. On the other hand, Talk:Novi Zagreb-istok (the talk page of the original article with page history) does contain both these banners and some discussions and also has page history, but I can't move it together with the article. Thanks for your help. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for The George Nethercutt Foundation

An editor has asked for a deletion review of The George Nethercutt Foundation. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RMHED (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. It's not signed. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• I've sent it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The George Nethercutt Foundation Gwen Gale (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleting article Renso Tamse

Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a real person

First of all, he is a Real person. Secondly he is a well-known artist from Holland and is becoming a great artist in the world of WildLife Art. Especially in countries like Holland, Germany, England and even Oman. So is it possible to make an article of this person?

With kind regards,

Remco Band The Netherland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rempierules (talk • contribs) 10:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a break from amateur spam

Enjoy the work of a pro! -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Keen craft! Gwen Gale (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Skillwho Article

Hi, I based my article on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Taltopia, which is a similar website to Skillwho in size and notability. Why is that article allowed to remain, but mine was deleted? What makes the Taltopia article "notable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfermac (talk • contribs) 02:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read this, along with this and do let me know if you have questions. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, I actually read that article very carefully before messaging you. Is there some formal process that I missed, like putting why I think the company is notable in the discussion section or something? I read the WAX article and the only conclusion is that the other similar article should also be deleted then. How do I recommend that? comment added by Surfermac (talk • contribs) 09:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Going by your questions, I truly think you should read this again. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock reminder

Hi. Just a friendly reminder to undo autoblocks when you unblock someone - Edtrash (talk · contribs) in this instance. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no autoblock got stirred up because he didn't try to edit with his IP after the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I found one and undid it - see my block log. (If you looked for one just now, you won't find it because I undid it already). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. He did try to edit with his IP then. Anyway yeah, there I was looking for it and you'd already undone it 5 minutes before! Thanks for taking care of it for me :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but it seems like every hard-block of a user account results in an immediate autoblock, whether they try to edit or not. Peruse the blocked IP list and you'll see why I think that. But it's not 100% so I've always been confused on that point. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're making me think about this again and although WP:AUTOBLOCK seems to say an autoblock doesn't happen unless a blocked user tries to edit from a logged IP, some fuzzy wording there and the output of the software do/can hint otherwise. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

← Well, from the history at WP:AUTOBLOCK, all of that verbiage is very old - maybe too old. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna find out how this truly works, I am! Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Let me know what you find out. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Justin G Davis also J G Davis also ...

Hi, can you please keep an eye out for this page. It has been created and speedily deleted at least 4 times and it's back again. It's a vandal piece. Thanks!! Setwisohi (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some links and a username? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, the page has just been Speedied, Justin G. Davis, it was also speedied as Justin Graham Davis and it was speedied in another format. The user seems to be both an anon. IP and User:Justinjenga - also in different guises I think. Until he/she gets bored recreating this, I think it could use some wise monitoring. Setwisohi (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've thrown on some salt. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

?

I provided some diffs on the AN thread. WOuld appreciate your comments.pschemp | talk 16:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Have done, hope you two can find a way to settle all this down to a dull roar. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

behaviour

What objections do you have to my behaviour? 86.44.28.16 (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Bringing that question here. Please take this back to User:Abtract's talk page, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a side-issue to that discussion, and apparently I have already done Abtract harm simply by giving my view, so I would appreciate it if you would tolerate discussion here, rather than make Abtract's page look like a locus of all sorts of issues and disputes. If there is something about the manner in which I have given my view or responded to posts, I should like to know about it. How does my behaviour factor in to your block review? 86.44.28.16 (talk) 00:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's somewhat likely you're User:Abtract, evading a block. Whether or not you are, you've harmed his block appeal by seeming so. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting the posts stand here, appreciated. How would I avoid such a perception, and still give my view? 86.44.28.16 (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you can help. Over half the IP edits I see (and I've been editing Wikipedia for a long time) are very helpful. However, IPs don't have contribution histories which can be linked to a single person, so each good faith IP edit more or less stands on its own. In the mainspace, this not so much of a worry but in project space discussions ongoing trust is much more meaningful and a known contribution history is the only way to build that trust. Moreover, since I'm not the only editor who thinks you may be User:Abtract (and I'll not give you a primer here on how to skirt behaving like User:Abtract), you're stirring up more worries than anything else. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So you have no objections to my behaviour outside of the fact that I am posting at all, and you think AGF can and should go out the window once an IP editor posts in project space? I'm not trying to be smart, this seems to be literally what you are saying. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually you seem to be going further and saying that IP editors can't comment in project space. "I don't think you can help." My past experience, btw, is that the great majority of editors simply get on with AGF and commenting on content rather contributor, and that this works pretty well, though presumably a degree of tongue-biting goes on re suspicion and so forth. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to spin this into a wider topic. If not for AGF you'd already be blocked as an IP sock and I wouldn't have taken the time to answer you at all. All I'm saying is I don't think you can help User:Abtract because there is some likelihood you are User:Abtract. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not a wider topic, it is the topic. I don't see any evidence that there is any likelihood that I am Abtract, beyond the fact that I am an IP editor. Users like Abtract, Arcayne, JHJHunter, others at the RFC, and myself have similar views on this, except those of us who aren't abtract have tended to be at least as critical of him as we have been of other parties.

Can you at least amend your comment on my "behaviour" to make clear that you have no objections to my posts on their face but that they are predicated on the idea that it is Abtract doing this? If I'm not Abtract, I'm not clear on what is wrong with my behaviour. Nothing, right? 86.44.28.16 (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I think there is some likelihood you're User:Abtract, I find your behaviour worrisome for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That's unfair. I'm disappointed that you don't see that. Try the thought experiment that I am not Abtract and view my posts and your posts in this light. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have the time to start from the RFC, that could be helpful in understanding my positions. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Well, you certainly have Abtract's gift for talking a subject to death. Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

When one is called a sock for no reason, and that is used against another editor in order to help with maintaining an indef block against him, it's not clear what else one can do except attempt to tease out the issues and ramifications. I regret that it's necessary at all. 86.44.28.16 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say you had been called a sock for no reason. You were spotted by multiple editors as a possible sockpuppet for a couple of good reasons, none of which will change by your arguments. Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you're not one for discussion yourself. I'm not responsible for the paranoia of others, nor for those who prefer to muddy the waters and move on, though our policies and guidelines describe precisely the opposite behaviour as optimal, for excellent reasons which conversations like this, and that on Collectonion's talk, amply demonstrate. Vandal-fighters are generally the worst when it comes to commenting unreasonably on the IP rather than commenting on IP comments. Admins are generally the best, which is why GG disappoints me above. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Having now thoroughly read the RFC along with the above, I still support the indefinite block and now think it's highly likely you're User:Abtract, evading the block. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)No, you and Abtract are the ones who are long for discussion. If you're really not responsible for the "paranoia of others," It would make sense for you to just drop the issue, rather than feel compelled to come to multiple pages and try and deny what other editors suspect.

Gwen, I agree with you on this IP editor. As two editors shouldn't be arguing on another's page (and you asked the above IP to take it back to Abtract's page), I'll just apologize for taking up space on your page and say I support you on this one. Dayewalker (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh no worries at all, thanks for pitching in :) Meanwhile I do think User:Abtract should speak for himself (on his talk page). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Shame on you. Compile a SSP/CU. Put up or (as you should have done on this point all along) shut up. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Err Daye, my editing is being used against an indef-blocked editor, and the isssue has wider implications with regard to how IPs are treated here. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You pass and you're still not helping yourself. Begone. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're that confident, you should be blocking. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to be blocked, just say the word, right here. Suggest a time, too. (How does 31 hours strike you?) Nobody will be much interested in anything else you seem likely to say. -- Hoary (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't like to be blocked. I'd like to be able to edit without this kind of bad faith treatment, and without it being used against other editors. None of my comments were unhelpful, in bad faith, or disruptive, and yet this sockpuppet meme has caught on like wildfire. (Well actually I think the current count is GG, Daye and you; Collectonion has moved on, satisfied that the damage is done.)

There is no evidence presented besides the fact that i am an IP editor, is there unpresented evidence, as has been implied? (daye's "WP:BEANS" on ANI, GG's "I'll not give you a primer here on how to skirt behaving like User:Abtract")

Consider the possibility that you are wrong, and the implications of that? Bad for Abtract, bad for me, and bad for Wikipedia, but no skin off your noses, I suppose. For this I get told that Nobody will be much interested in anything else you seem likely to say? The situation is absurd. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD) No one has treated you with bad faith. You haven't been blocked, and your comments haven't been removed. More than one (actually every) editor who's looked at your contributions, edits, style, etc. has reasoned you might be Abstract, but you're not blocked. This IP hasn't even been tagged with a sock notice yet.

Indeed, you are the one who keeps coming up and making complaint after complaint about being labeled a sockpuppet. As an IP address, your privacy is probably important to you, right? So why are you concerned about someone being wrong about your identity, especially when you have no identity on wikipedia other than an IP address (which is subject to change)? Dayewalker (talk) 06:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in considering that you aren't or are "Abtract", a username I'd never heard of till recently and which I haven't investigated. To me, your most salient characteristic is that of a bore. Since you are so boring, and since what I've seen in your edit history suggests that your positive contributions are few and small, and since you are demonstrably a waste of people's time, I'm uninterested in the putative injustice of any penalty given you. This may seem unfair, but you've brought it upon yourself. And you can easily dispel it: either (a) run along and edit an article, or (b) devote your valuable time to something away from Wikipedia. Or of course (c) say how long a block you want. -- Hoary (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly happy to have my article space contribs measured against yours, if you want that kind of contest. Shall we give the five articles that we are principle authors of that we are most pleased with? Absurd. If people call me a sock, use that against another editor, and seek to compromise my ability to edit in project space without good reason, then naturally I am going to get drawn into that discussion under this current account. Your personal attacks and patronization are an embarrassment to you. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 14:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

IP, you're being disruptive. Please take the hint and go away, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use your evidence to request CU, then apologize to Abtract and I. No, I'm not being serious, I know you won't do that. Apparently reasonably questioning admin judgment and actions (poisoning the well at Abtract's page) , as well as objecting to the personal attacks that ensue, is disruptive. The matter is not to be discussed, and the damage caused by calling IP editors socks without good reason is not a concern. I'm clear now. 86.44.28.16 (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 12 hours, you know why. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Totally not getting old

• Could this get a rush on its speedy deletion? JuJube (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone got there before me. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

'Most recently'

Rather, if an article starts out with, "Naomi Ellen Watts (born 28 September 1968) is an English-Australian actress. She is known for her roles in Mulholland Drive, the film remakes of The Ring, King Kong and most recently Funny Games along with her Academy Award-nominated role in the film 21 Grams" this is much more likely to give a reader something helpful!

Do you think it might be a good idea to omit "most recently" from the above example, which would seem to be a violation of a WP policy or two? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ta! I've been seeing that kind of wording so often lately, I thought the community had grown towards putting up with it and kinda threw up my hands. Your comment stirred me not only to change the wording in my example, but in the lead of the article too. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. That's only because most contributors are not editors and just don't think about things like that. (I found two of the policies at WP:Words_to_avoid and WP:Avoid statements that will date quickly. I'm sure there are more.) Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Updated by GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We agree. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New prog

I don't see anything procedurally wrong with the nomination, and I think it was made in good faith (I made a comment in support of deletion, actually). So I don't think it was a candidate for speedy closure. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what you think about this, but my take is this was a bad faith nomination made by an editor with a disruptive/misleading username. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the nominator's deletion rationale is reasonable enough for a full discussion. I hope you'll reverse the close; I'm thinking seriously about nominating the article for deletion on my own a second time, if you leave the first nomination closed. It would be easier if you simply let the original discussion proceed.

The misleading username issue had already been addressed with a note at User:DeletionAccount. The main reason I'm ignoring your block there is that the user already stated plans to abandon the account. But I think the block was also an overreaction. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The note at User:DeletionAccount was sarcastic and besides, the username itself strayed from WP:Username and was clearly causing far too many double-takes, wasting the time of volunteer editors. As for the AfD please let me have another look for a tick. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reopened the AfD because you've asked me to. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I put a more detailed rationale there explaining why I found the nomination plausible. I'm not planning to think about the block again, we'll have to agree to disagree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Am I getting tired of this yet? Yes, I am. I will be filing an administrator grievance with Alai for his actions here. He has not only failed to assume good faith, he has thrown it out the window and accused me of being a sock puppet. I am not amused. Not in the slightest. If you're so sure the username is inappropriate (for the reason that... someone might mistake it for something it very clearly is not?), I'll axe it and create a new one. Fine. That is not my concern. What is my concern is the utter lack of regard displayed here for Wikipedia policies. I've faced skeptical editors before, but I've never seen this kind of brazen disregard for decency. That's right, I'm an anonymous editor! Never seen one before? And hey, I like to be able to actually make my own pages rather than hanging on someone's coattails. What the hell ever happened to WP:AGF and WP:IAR? Instead of working to improve Wikipedia, we spend our time finding ways to bend the rules of prohibited activities to include things which they otherwise would not? To take my turn jumping off the AGF ladder, I would consider that not only in poor faith but also malicious.

Furthermore, you say "wasting the time of volunteer editors." Wait, I'm not a volunteer editor? Holy fuck! I never realized I was getting paid for this. Or maybe I'm a slave to it. I guess that, since you made the distinction, you would know. May I remind you that being an administrator is "no big deal" and that you and Alai are nothing but regular editors who also have technical access? Just want to make sure we're still on the same page. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to edit mostly from an IP that's ok but please don't disrupt the project with misleading usernames for the SPAs you need to open. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The account is retired and a new account registered. Thank you for your time. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 19:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm personally far from convinced of the "need" for SPAs/throwaway account/sockpuppets that dare not speak their name (and will split hairs to argue that they are somehow not, contrary to any plausible duck test), and will let the tone of this particular example's contributions speak for themselves as to whether they're a good model for a lack of need for scrutiny of contributions. But that's a broader question than this particular AFD (or contributor): see the discussion at WT:AFD. Might as well let this one run its course, on the basis of CBM's input. Alai (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You may not realise this, but there are indeed people in the world who prefer not to have their lives placed in a permanent database. May be hard for you to understand, but I question whether it's your place to judge. As easily provable by looking at the log on the SPA, it's obvious that I am not a sock puppet. And contrary to your suggestion, it's much more difficult to detect a sock puppet from two established registered accounts because they both seem to be legitimate.

As for the AfD, if I'm wrong, so be it. I have been before, and so are about 10-20 other editors per day. Not every AfD ends in Delete, you know. 81.51.232.219 (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

it looks like User:George-hans is back

in the form of Vice-vive-vice (talk · contribs). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted, salted, blocked and tagged. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

im really not sure how to do a page

• Hogan's Heroes (band) CombatMarshmallow (talk · contribs)

we have pages at VH1

www.vh1.com/artists/az/hogan_s_heroes/albums.jhtml

and Rolling Stone

www.rollingstone.com/reviews/album/154016/hogans_heroes

Billboards Magazines' Phonolog Pop artists Beginning with"HOD"

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=194479642&blogID=338670561

i am trying to help fill out this page.

maybe ill be able to figure out and i thought i would be able to constantly add week by week for a small time and get it to be as Professional as KISS or any Professional group.

G B

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen! thank you for your Very Quick Response. I very much appreciate it. I will analyze the page that teaches how to effectively supply the proper information. Hopefully, the understanding of this, so far, complex task will be revealed to me. its really the first creative thing i ever did that was not good enough in years and i am going to correct that. When i am done i will have supplied a comprehensive and proper entry. i might give it a little time for me to re-group and gather all sources needed to make this a successful part of the wikipedia online encyclopedia.

thank you for your time G B

Ok, let me know if you have any questions! All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I shouldnt have signed my name i erased it ,it was showing up on a google search. And I will ask you if i run into something i cant handle.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Tri North Lighting, Inc.

Please move this back to my user space and at least explain what else is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D453g (talk • contribs) 20:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the deleted content at User:D453g/Tri North Lighting. As the deletion log says, the article doesn't indicate importance or significance. Please read this if you haven't yet and write the article only from independent sources, as if you had forgotten everything you knew about it and could only go by what others have published. Let me know if you have further questions. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Novi Zagreb - istok - reply

When you deleted the copied article, you apparently forgot to delete the talk page. Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok (the talk page of the deleted copy) does not contain any useful information apart from some banners. On the other hand, Talk:Novi Zagreb-istok (the talk page of the original article with page history) does contain both these banners and some discussions and also has page history, but I can't move it together with the article. Thanks for your help. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What do you want me to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for bringing this out of the archive, but I forgot to check your page after I posted the notice. Talk:Novi Zagreb-istok should belong to the Novi Zagreb - istok article (note the spaces between "Zagreb" and "istok", but there is a Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok, which has only some WikiProject banners and lacks the text. I moved it to Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok/Temp, but I still can't do the move. Could you delete Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok and Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok/Temp so that I can move Talk:Novi Zagreb-istok to Talk:Novi Zagreb - istok. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 17:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done (I think!) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mikel San Jose Dominguez Deletion

• Mikel San Jose Dominguez
• Mikel San José Dominguez
• Mikel San José
• Mikel San Jose

Mikel San Jose Dominguez hasn't played a senior professional game yet - but - he was an unused substitute for a premiership match against Chelsea - BBC Football Murray conor (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikel San José. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for an objective look

Hi Gwen! Could I trouble you to take an objective look at a user's recent contributions and some of the discussions they have been involved in? I don't want to specify what I'm concerned about lest I bias your opinion, so I'll just define it broadly as concerns about the editor's adherence to certain core WP policies, and let you see if there's anything that concerns you. Please let me know if you're willing to spend a bit of time and effort doing this. If so, I'll point you to the user; if not, I won't trouble you further. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 04:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Happy to :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Écrasez l'infâme, within the past two or three weeks. Other editors' conduct in these discussions, including my own, is fair game too as far as I'm concerned, but I don't mean to burden you with a huge investigation either, so I leave it up to you how far to look into it. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 04:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My take as... me

Never mind Joe Smith was more than likely a skilled scammer mostly after teenaged girls and gold which is the same, tired old tale we've often seen long before and since but the pith is, those waves of women who were later drawn and born into LDS have since wrought it into altogether something else from what he, BY and their cronies meant it to be back in the 1840s and 50s after he'd woven things together from a mix of the KJ Bible, Freemasonry and early 19th century European-American popular culture. From the outlook of faith, who is anyone to say why the angels flocked about him, flaws and all and who doesn't have them?

There are reasons why LDS spun into the most successful new religion to come along since Islam and much of this has to do with how the believers themselves have tended to feel about family, community, health and work ever since (along with, I dare say, their demographic backgrounds and north American geopolitics). For all the theological and historical faults (and crimes) one may find whilst digging into the history of Mormonism, if the only thing I'd ever wanted to do with my life had been to raise a flock of happy, healthy and smart kids, I'd have thought long and hard about doing it in a small town nestled by the dappled hills of southern Utah (even given what I've long known about what happened at Mountain Meadows). Science is one thing, spirituality's another and how folks go about their lives in the meantime is what's meaningful.

Now, overall, User:Écrasez l'infâme seems to have made a mistake wontedly seen on Wikipedia: Like it or not, the sources show a gaping lack of any meaningful link between human spiritual belief systems and (the much newer) human scientific method. Put another way, most folks (even more so the clever ones) go along with science for stuff like having lights in the house at night, putting food on the table, even helping get the kids through their bouts of sickness and so on, all of which makes life much easier and longer but when it comes to dealing with the inner life most (but not all) of us were born with, religion is still wildly, sometimes startlingly popular and there are very long standing survival benefits to this, stretching back at least thousands of years and likely much further.

Since religions are belief systems with deep anthropological trends of their own there is no need (or pith) to debunk them through a scientific outlook (very sad and failed outcomes may be had in trying, though). I would even glark, when and if the day ever comes that we can describe any human religion only in scientific, wholly repeatable terms, it'll be clear there's nothing there to debunk, the sundry fibs and lies of religion and politics being more or less but spin-offs of the highly narrowed takes on life we each cling upon to get us through our tougher days and nights, which any self-aware political marketer will tell you can still be played and swayed to the hilt.

My take as an admin

As an aside, having grown up in the city of Calvin speaking both French and English, I can tell you Écrasez l'infâme sounds even stronger and more PoV in French than does its English translation but there's no need to go on about it since these days, the Wikipedia community as a whole puts up with mildly disruptive usernames.

• Écrasez l'infâme's edits as to a genetic spin on the Book of Mormon are rash. The known scientific evidence clearly doesn't support the BoM's straight historical tale but I have yet to hear of any scientist saying the BoM is contradicted by physical evidence: Écrasez l'infâme is drawing his own outcome with cite spanning (along with straightforward misrepresentations of sources), which is original research. Never mind the pithlessness of trying to debunk a long-standing, widely read book of faith, carrying metaphorical and anthropological meanings which few if any scientists can yet get near, for many and sundry reasons.

• Écrasez l'infâme is clearly edit warring and is tendentiously trying to debunk rather than neutrally inform. I gather he may indeed think a neutral take would be to debunk but if so, he's mistaken. For starters, handling the 116 pages is cake for any halfway clever theologist: Folks who write down what God told them are bound to make flaws, misunderstand, lose stuff, tumble into the bogs of their own wanton weakness and so on, that's what the tales and lore of religion are all about, one way or another.

• Aside from some edits back in 2006, Écrasez l'infâme is a single purpose account.

• Écrasez l'infâme is rejecting input, straying from article ownership policy and likely to drive away good faith editors in doing so.

• All this amounts to disruption, which after a few warnings, is blockable.

This said, Book of Mormon should cite critical takes on its history along perhaps, with a bit more on Smith's treasure hunting background (after all, from an outlook of faith, maybe that's why the angels settled on Smith to begin with). The pith is, it's not for the article to say the book is codswallop, which is what Écrasez l'infâme is trying to make happen: This strays from both the sources and NPoV. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; this is the type of analysis I was hoping for. What do you recommend regarding any action to take, and who should take it? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps politely ask him to read the above and see where he takes it from there? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Écrasez has edited since I posted that message so we'll see if there's a response. Given the user's reactions to other editors' similar concerns at Talk:Book of Mormon (e.g., [2], [3], [4]) I have a feeling what it will be, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. alanyst ^/talk/ 17:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If you will allow me to chime in - maybe a little off topic, but anyway... For those of us who edit Mormon related articles that are ex-Mormon or otherwise do not subscribe to the LDS faith, it is quite frustrating because there is a large contingent of LDS faithful that squat on those pages, and will revert anything that is critical without taking a second look. It is quite a battle to get NPOV information on to these pages. Though Ecrasez's edits may not be totally on the level, I would venture that he is not the only one to blame here. Having edited these articles for more than a year now, I have seen this happen a hundred times - a user will come along and try (to varying degrees) to bring a little more NPOV to the articles, only to have violent opposition. The user may persist for a while, but in the end it isn't worth the effort so he moves on, and the article goes back to what it was. Ecrasez is much more persistent than most to be sure - and I admit that I have my own POV on this issue. And in the end, this may just be one of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia in general. I myself have been subject to this kind of opposition, and thought it was a breath of fresh air to see Ecrasez trying to stick to his guns. Again, though I think that in some cases he may have crossed the line, there was some good editing and information that came out of it all. Please let me know if I am wrong in my observations. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have acknowledged systemic bias (this wlink doesn't cover it all though), as would any terciary source, which shows up in many and sundry nettlesome ways, overwhelmingly in high profile or controversial topics. It's something we all have to deal with as editors of a collaborative project. As for the LDS topics, from what I've seen, it is possible to get these articles at least somewhat NPoV (sometimes by using sub articles) if users stay more or less within the bounds of Wikipedia policy. Écrasez l'infâme has been straying a bit too far from policy and moreover, as I hinted above, there is no need to debunk belief systems, one need only describe them neutrally from reliable sources. Lots of readers are much smarter than some edit-warring editors think, by the bye. Hence I would tend to say, whether an LDS article is wholly and eagerly written with a narrow "faith" take, or a highly thrashing "debunk" take, the kinds of readers we'd care about would blow it off as codswallop either way, which is why something at least in the suburbs of NPoV should have the most sway. Now, I do think Écrasez l'infâme's (mistaken) take on NPoV is that this means to debunk faith, but that kind of thinking runs against a tide of anthropological evidence. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Camp Wabanaki

Gwen, I take exception to your previous deletion of my effort to create a Wiki site for Camp Wabanaki, a camp I attended as both a camper during my childhood, and later as a staff member. I wanted to create it for legacy purposes, not for blatant advertising as you suggested. I have not attended the camp since 1983, and have no personal stake in its promotion, but do consider it a worthy dictionary item. I'd appreciate your respect of that when I try to recreate it again in the near future. Thanks. Jmr007 (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Have you read this page yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

drv?

Subst:DRVNote Joseph Armitage Robinson---Clive Sweeting

Joseph Armitage Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sorry but I do not understand this deletion review. The deleted article was about Joseph Armitage Robinson, "...successively Dean of Westminster (1902-1911) and of Wells (1911- )" Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

KEV 2008 KS

I just wanted to thank you for deleting my KEV 2008 KS page. I put it up there by accident and didn't know what to do to get it down. I was trying to create a profile or practice page something but I am still new and learning. Obviously, I didn't learn enough. I wasn't advertising because I have nothing to sell. But I appreciate you fixing my dumbo error and apologize for the inconvenience it may have caused you. Thank you very much.  :-)

Have a great day! —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEV 2008 KS (talk • contribs) 19:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you ever need help with something! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

speedy-deletion of Joseph Armitage Robinson

When you have a minute, would you please review your decision to speedy-delete the Joseph Armitage Robinson page? I'm not sure that the biography would survive an AfD discussion but being "Dean of Westminster" and "a renowned scholar" with an actual biography is at least an assertion of notability. This page didn't really qualify under case A7. I suspect that it's going to land at Deletion review if it stays speedied. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, in looking it over again (after I got that odd DRV notice a couple of threads up), I almost restored and sent it to AfD, so I'm gonna do that now, thanks for the nudge. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it more, it appears that you relied on the csd tag applied by user:Nuttah. I noticed that this user has applied a large number of deletion tags to articles, the vast majority of which have been summarily removed. That user seems to be having trouble understanding Wikipedia's admittedly byzantine inclusion criteria. Thanks for reviewing it. Rossami (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember deleting this because it took me some time to do so and I almost declined the speedy, way borderline and harmlessly so. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Donna Ricco

Hello

We posted an entry for American designer Donna Ricco. We work for her company and this entry was reviewed, edited and approved by her and all of the information is accurate. Could you please advise as to why it was deleted? And what we need to do to get it re-posted? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnaricco (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article looks ok now. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

can you please watch this page? (Irgun)

New difficulties arose, with your exprience needed.

Thank you.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm watching the page and have looked at the talk page. Although I don't like the "terrorist" categories (since, broadly put, anyone can call anyone else a terrorist and the label is always overwhelmingly negative), if the New York Times and sundry news orgs called them terrorists it is highly unlikely you'll be able to keep this group out of that category set. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ThanX for watching, and your commants. I've detailed the problematic POV of this, since they were never designed as such (and makes the case of "terror" argumentive and disputed POV in contradictory to NPOV policy). The Hebrew wikipedia along with 18 (out 22 wiki's various languages website) didn't categorize them as such, which gives you a glimpse of what people think of the group (not just me), that have attacked only armed forces, not a defenition of "terror" by far, and no NPOV for policy for sure. They are considered even less "Extrime" then Lehi.

2 contradictory polices on this specific case to be resolved. I belive they put NPOV and other policies so someone would not "rape" wiki's policy of "refer as terror" to promote his own adjenda, in cases where it does not make any sense, like if the group was not even designed as such (different from Lehi where the argument itself was weather they were designed or not as such, here there is not a quesion about it)

--Shevashalosh (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what other Wikipedias do or don't do. Short of deleting all of the terrorist categories (which won't happen anytime soon) there is no way to keep groups like this out of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to delete "terror" categories on wiki. Terrorist who kill women and children should be there. The only thing is you have other wiki's policies - like NPOV, and in this case they have attacked an armed forces (and were not even designed as such)- makes it quit an argumentive "terror" POV and not a NPOV policy. This is why this specific case, you need to resolve the problem of 2 contredictory policies.

one say : "refered as terror" (they were not designed as such - how can the policy be pointing at them? or is someoe "raping" the policy?)

second NPOV: They were not designed and have attacked (armed) soldiars - surly an argumentive POV (not to talk about the general POV of 18 wikis langugas website that disagree on the point of category:terror - including in Arabic)

I've offered a compremise "Militant Group" category - despite the fact that I don't agree (it hides behind words to describe a terror group on wiki) - yet avoids the woeding of it. I thought it was the only way out - solving the 2 contradictory policies.

--Shevashalosh (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may say they were not terrorists, but that's your own original research. As I have said, if reliable sources have called them terrorists (never mind who they attacked or didn't attack), it is highly unlikely you will be able to argue that this group doesn't belong in a terrorist category. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As Gwen points out, the easiest way to avoid any POV issue with the designation of terrorist is to represent what the sources term them. Beam 03:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added the page to my watch list as well, to help out! Beam 03:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Iron man 2

thank you for the prompt response to the CSD. Please see the AN/I report here about that editor, if you could? ThuranX (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(sorry to double tag you) Also, see Talk:Iron_man_2_(film), which it seems he created as you deleted the mainspace article. ThuranX (talk) 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please let me know if he keeps at it. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch

I just wanted to thank you sooo much for understanding me and my purposes, unlike veryone else who has just blocked me instead of listening. I am now off to help the wiki!!!! Love isNoobish 19:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers indeed. Cheers indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Love is Noobish (talk • contribs) 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't let us down, ya know? Go slowly. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey

See my talk page, i dont feel like typing it again. Thanks.Love isNoobish 02:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey~!!!!

SEE MY TALK PAGE Love isNoobish 03:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen!!

Read my talk page please, i need you to read it immediatly otherwise i wont be happy. Thanks. Love isNoobish 03:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Camp calleva

I tried to write the article as objectively as possible, but I do see some areas were something could be considered blatant advertising (such as where I said campers learn skills 'from top to bottom'). With your permission, I would like to write it again and make sure to be extra careful. I am also open to suggestion about ways to change the article. If I were you I would also look in the category of 'summer camps in maryland', as I attempted to emulate my article from these. Thanks for your time. Callevacamp (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, editor obviously has a conflict of interest per their username, but this is probably good faith. If you restore it, I'll be responsible for it. Tan ǀ 39 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've restored Camp Calleva pending some sources, I also added notability, COI and advertisement tags. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I might end up deleting it again anyways (or at least taking it to AfD), but I thought I'd give the guy a fighting chance with some admin oversight. Carry on, madam - Tan ǀ 39 14:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blocks

How many more times are you going to block me without ever taking action against those who commit personal attacks against me? How many more times? Wfgh66 (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

However many more times you fall into personal attacks (name calling) and incivility, keeping in mind the blocks will only get longer from now on. I've told you I tend to agree with your PoV but you're harming it, not helping it, by attacking other editors. Don't do it, ever. Stick to content. Meanwhile if someone attacks you again, give me the diff and I'll handle it. Fair enough? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Warnings from editors who themselves have broken WP:NPA

I will not tolerate receiving warnings from editors that have been blocked themselves for breaking WP:NPA Wfgh66 (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please observe and do somethings about the harassment by User:Wfgh66 on my talk page. (At least I learn from my mistakes and haven't been blocked for personal attack for 6 months!) Wednesday Next (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blow it off, both of you. Begin anew now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Iamthe7DeadlySins

You are being beckoned =) –xeno (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eek! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm all for reforming and stuff, but look at the edit he made. Maybe simple: would be more suited to his pace? –xeno (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's one way of putting it :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

=) –xeno (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh, yeah, I'm thinking there is no way :( Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he might like it over there better anyways. They tend to allow a lot more "myspacing" than we do here. –xeno (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• eh that didn't go over very well, did it? –xeno (talk) 12:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Never seen the likes. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yardbarker

Hi, I'd like to request you reevaluate and reconsider your speedy deletion of Yardbarker. You appear to have deleted it under CSD A7 web as the previous two deletions were done. However the most recent edit to the page was significantly different from the previous versions and in fact did meet the criterion for at least going to a consensus discussion for deletion if nothing else. The most recent edit did assert the subject's importance and relevance for inclusion as well as notability. Admittedly the previous two deletions did not, but this most recent one did. Your deletion log also states "blog ad", however if you read the most recent version of the page the page is not an ad, nor is it a blog. The page actually refers to a corporation based in Emeryville California, and the page meets WP:CORP if I'm not mistaken. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've sent this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yardbarker for discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Chris Dave

• Igmar Thomas & The Cypher
• Chris "Daddy" Dave

Hi Gwen,

Chris "Daddy" Dave is considered one of the most influential drummers in the world of this era in Jazz and or Hip Hop. He is the most requested drummer for session gigs and tours from the most legendary artists in the Jazz, Gospel, Pop and Hip Hop worlds. He does university clinic tours and is about to release an instructional Drum DVD. He is drummer's favorite drummer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee.Turley (talk • contribs) 03:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read this page and then rewrite it, this time less like an advertisement and more like an encyclopedia article, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops

I believe I accidentally requested speedy deletion of User:Oni Ookami Alfador/Userboxes/noyou in my userspace, a request that you fulfilled. I had intended to tag another image and mistakenly tagged this one, would you please be so kind as to restore it if you have a spare moment? Thank you.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified "Terrorism"

I'd appreciate your comments here. Thanks, TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Thoughts in search of a thinker

An article that you have been involved in editing, Thoughts in search of a thinker, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughts in search of a thinker. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

As you suggested AfD, I'd appreciate your input here. Thanks Mvjs (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I do wish there was a CSD category for original research. Thanks for letting me know about this. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Making sure I haven't muddied the waters

Gwen,

Something you said on Bedford's talk page confused me. I thnk you know this, but just to be safe: The stuf in my sandbox is there because I put it there, not Bedford. It's a copy of his blog post, which i put there as a permanent record in case he deleted the blog post. So if you're insisting on an on-wiki response because the post was on-wiki, that isn't the case. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

John Bambenek/delete page

I created that page for discussion for a WP:THIRD complaint... it wasn't orphaned, that was the process I was told to use both in DRV and WP:THIRD. I'm trying to follow the process here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emma866 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be looking for deletion review. Or you might create a page in your own userspace. Please ask me if you have more questions. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Central Kentucky Punk Scene deletions

I know you have a "job" to do (no offense meant, but I realize that most people handle Wiki as a hobby), but the deletions of Central Kentucky topics pertaining to Punk subculture like Eugene Records and the Infected seemed a bit hasty. I noticed the tags for speedy deletion and added my own comments in order to help stave off deletion, but I am not the originator of the articles and I doubt that the creator of the articles had a chance to respond to the call for deletion. The original author was only notified about five hours ago and while the speed at which Wiki can and does move is fast, I think it behooves us to make considerations for the everyday lives of those people who contribute.

I really wish that more people had gotten a chance to chime in on the importance of the deleted articles before they got the axe. I don't know if you've ever lived in or visited Central Kentucky, but there's not a lot of variety in local events and entertainment so for those folks in the Central KY Punk scene, there's little else but Eugene Records and the associated articles. That makes the cultural significance, at least to them, pretty high.

Any article on Wikipedia has some element of advertisement, even if it's to simply acknowledge that something exists. If you read the deleted articles, you may note that they were for informative purposes, not solicitation. There's not a lot of articles about the culture of the area beyond horse racing, college sports, churches, and the University of Kentucky, so adding to that should be a help for the region.

If you still have access to the history of the many of the articles, you may see that I have slowly been working on some of them. On the Talk page for Lexington, Kentucky I have suggested making a section for Music, musicians, and popular bands in the area for the Culture section. My intention was to help combine all the elements of local color and culture so that the readers may get an idea of what Lexington and Central Kentucky have to offer any visitor or resident.

Possible resolution

I don't know if you can do this, but if it is possible to restore the pages but add stub tags to them, I'd be very appreciative for the chance to refine them and add to them. I admit that the amount of effort that I put into this response could have gone to making those pages more "Wikifiable", so if you could please give that opportunity, I will make sure that I take it.

Thank you,

Team4Technologies (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and per this suggestion I've left you a note (more of a novella) about restoring the pages. I doubt that discussion would result in much in favor of the articles since they're rather trivial outside of the topic of Central Kentucky culture. That's why I simply asked for reinstatement under stub status, that way myself and others with first hand knowledge may expand upon the articles. Sound fair? - Team4Technologies (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to help but the topics don't meet WP:BAND or WP:CORP. As mentioned in the above link, if hadn't deleted them, someone else would have done (stubs or not). I could put the deleted content in your userspace though. If you can later find independent sources/coverage on the band and the label, you could then take them to deletion review. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could please put the content in my user space, I could contact the original author of the articles and expand them, cite appropriately, and Wikify them to appropriate specifications. Thank you. - Team4Technologies (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, please see User:Team4Technologies/sandbox. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/BarracudaDrive

• BarracudaDrive

You have deleted BarracudaDrive

The article you deleted was carefully designed to be similar to articles you find links to from the following section: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Comparison_of_web_server_software

You should also delete *ALL* similar pages, or are you giving preferences to certain products?

You have two options. Delete all similar pages to BarracudaDrive (there are many) Restore BarracudaDrive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilfrednilsen (talk • contribs) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Truth be told, I have lots more "options" than those two but if you want my help, you're only "option" for now is to read this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Page

Can you restore this version by deleting the later reversions. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I am asking someone else. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit:

Please, when fulfilling or declining CSD requests, make sure that you take a proper look at the article's history. Here, you changed a CSD tag to a PROD tag, when in fact the same user who added the CSD tag had earlier added a PROD tag, which was then immediatley contested. It therefore baffles me why on Earth you'd re-add the PROD tag, when clearly it's not suitable here. The only logical explaination that I can come up with is that you didn't check the history, which is poor form. _TalkIslander 19:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I understand what you mean but taken altogether, you're mistaken. I declined the speedy deletion. I saw no prod tag in any edit summary when I scanned over the history. I've since found the earlier prod tag edit with no edit summary however, keeping in mind that anyone can remove a prod tag in good faith and prods added to watched articles are removed all the time, no harm was done here at all. The next time you run across a glitch like this, you'll get much further with a bit of polite friendliness. You might even get a "thanks for taking care of it and letting me know" as an answer. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying any harm was done here, just saying take more care, 'tis all. _TalkIslander 19:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Since there was not a hint of the earlier prod in the edit summaries, the only way anyone could have found that prod would have been to look at the text of each version of the article history. I was very careful. I declined the speedy and knew spot on the prod would be deleted by anyone who cared a wit about the article. Hence, there was more or less no likelihood my action could do any harm. Meanwhile, for all we know, there are two or three more prods lurking in that article's history. Anyway, this is not a big deal, I'm only sayin'. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up on deletion

Gwen,

When I asked for feedback on my talk page, I was and am still open to feedback about working within wikipedia. Seeing one's article on which over an hour was spent, is a bit discouraging. However, if I may explain to you why it was written.

I am the author of the original Contagious Leadership. There are three other authors of this topic, as a speech, workbook, or other work, and I have the only license to use it from the original trade mark holder. This type of Leadership, Contagious Leadership, has been added to the wikipedia page "leadership" and thus in my opinion warranted an explanation. I looked up other authors and noted the style in which an article for them was written and followed suit. I do not believe that my article was blatant advertising as it merely stated fact and no superlatives (i.e. world's greatest, blah, blah, blah). The intent is to inform and provide other content, thus why I provided numerous other links (both internal and external). Short of hiring someone else or asking someone else to write the article for me, I am not clear how to proceed. Please advise and thank you. mlw (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Monica

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Undo of Contagious Leadership

Gwen,

Again I am struck by the Undo. clearly I am a bit confused as to how this works and have a few questions...

- what body provides you with the authority to decide what is notable and what is not - when one has authored multiple works widely accepted by thousands in audiences, amazon, multiple websites and blogs, what governing body gets to decide when information from that expert is not worth being listed in the appropriate category. - what is the purpose of allowing for credible editing of an article when someone such as yourself who knows little or nothing of the contributor has the enormous power to merely delete valuable and informative content with a few key strokes.

I look forward to your feedback in as timely a fashion as you were able to suggest that my article "Might get tagged" followed by your tag, your deletion, and your undo. Thank you very much.

mlw (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I must ask again, have you read this page yet? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Got the page you sent and it was helpful. Perhaps having won Emmys is where I stand. I believe this is the type (see below) of article that was placed and perhaps it helps if I mention that I hold a designation that less than 10% of the speakers in the world have achieved, though I have not arrived to such stardom as being on people magazine. (nor am I certain that I want to). Simply, the point seems to remain that I am not encouraged to write an article about myself and must wait until someone takes it upon themselves. yes?

Naomi Ellen Watts (born 28 September 1968) is an English-Australian actress. She is known for her roles in Mulholland Drive, the film remakes of The Ring, King Kong, Funny Games and her Academy Award-nominated role in the film 21 Grams.

Thanks for your time and for your assistance. mlw (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true, you shouldn't be trying to write an article about yourself. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright. One last question. Can you help me understand why the Contagious Leadership notation under Types of Leaders was undone? And how I might use myself as a reference? Also, forgive my reference to you as having made the original tag. I see now that this is not the case.

mlw (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That edit was reverted as spam because it was a clear attempt to promote your own interests. Moreover, one would need to show contagious leadership is a widely used term in fields such as management and anthropology, as supported by reliable sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I am struggling with this on so many levels, but I am sure you hear that frequently. Not your fault, merely imposing guidelines that have been set. I get it and am rapidly trying to figure it out. To that end,is there is a list of reliable sources that I might take a peak at? thanks for your time in discussion and perhaps I can give a few examples of said reliable sources: is Jack Canfield (chicken soup for the soul co-author) a reliable resource if he mentions something on success? is a mention in the USA TODAY of my book a reliable source? if a book is published by a McGraw Hill or a Random House consider automatically a reliable source? and who makes such decisions?

I realize that these guidelines keep individuals who believe they are famous - yet this is only true in their own head - from blatant self promotion, yet am trying to find that happy medium between mere journalistic fact reporting and marketing for a business that the whole world does not yet know about.

Thank you again! mlw (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to be reading the links in my answers to your questions. Either way, it is more than likely that when the topic of your career meets Wikipedia's encyclopedic notability standards, someone will write an article about you. I suggest you wait until then. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow - All I think I should say is maybe one day I will be worthy. Until then, all the best to you, too. mlw (talk) 21:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Worthiness has nothing to do with it, Wikipedia is all about notability. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

BnbStar

Gwen, The article I wrote on BnBStar.com has just been deleted while a very similar article about a very similar directory is presented on Wikipedia. Could you explain to me what the difference is? Both sites are popular in the industry and highly regarded. What should have I done differently to keep the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travelegia (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Henkei page deletion

I was curious why you deleted the Henkei redirect page. I provided a (hangon) take and explained in the talk page that Henkei is the Japanese name for a toy line which DOES have have an article on the Wikipedia. I even gave it a talk page and a references. Was there anything else I needed? Thanks Mathewignash (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the name is an implausible search term on en.Wikipedia and we don't know how notable this product is in Japan, I've put it back, redirects are cheap. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember now, moreover the RD was both broken and a double RD, which is to say it didn't even work. I've fixed it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

a drive-by wave to the Lady of Shallot ... strangely applauding a speedy deletion ...

... that the editor wanted deleted.

Please forgive taking your time for this frivolous gesture, but while patrolling recent changes today I happened to notice a page creator who wanted their page deleted ... and I wondered to myself: "How many dragons will they have to slay to get their page deleted?"

Then comes the Lady of Shallot ... waving a graceful hand ... and poof. My applause, Milady. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Page Deleted - Miles Wydall

• Miles Wydall

Hi I am not sure why my page was deleted "Miles Wydall"

I only added it as my name appeared on this page

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Damon_Kelly

and i thought people would like to know a bit about me

I also coach this guy

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Benjamin_Alexander_Turner

Anyhow maybe that is notible enough - which is fine - just trying to help

Thanks Miles Mileswydall (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your quick reply - which bit do i fail on it it notible ? or another reason Miles Mileswydall (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of independent coverage and you shouldn't be trying to write an article about yourself. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - oh i see - Thanks for the help Mileswydall (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

pranavgupta article deleted - I am not sure why that article deleted - as i am ready to give free SEO Tips

• Pranavgupta

Hello,

I have created that article assuming that i could help Young Entrepreneurs, In saying so i am not doing that for any official cause. I have seen my friends started a new company and could not come on top on Search Engines as they dont have much to spen on SEO. Being a Softare Engineer - i thought i could explore SEO and Google Page Rankings and can help every New Entrepreneur to come forward.

If you think - that i have highlighted myself in the article, You please delete that part and keep other text in the article - like steps to increase page ranks - which could help people to get Page Ranks and I would also like to publish that there are 1000s of companies that they can claim SEO but they even dont know what is that. In saying so they dont have their own PRs and they claim that they could get you PR.

So its upto you, If you think that i am doing something wrong and not for the public use you can block my articles.

Regards, Pranav Gupta —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranavsaloni (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Online Radio Article

Hi Gwen I posted an article on Esoteric Online Radio yesterday and you deleted it. The note on there was regarding its link to persons/organisation/band etc that are still alive! Well that is very true they are. I double checked the most haunted link as they do exactly the same as Esoteric Online Radio but on the celestial channels. In fact Esoteric does far more than Most haunted,such as documentaries,debates,bring fraudulent mediums and dangerous cults to light, yet you deleted the article.

Most haunted mention their team and celeb guests they have on their show,so did I. The people Esoteric has on its shows may not be flashy mediums and superstars,but noted authors such as Phil Gardiner and Tim Wallace Murphy, I checked to see if there were links to these authors and there were none and so added outside web links to there personal webpage.

On Most haunted they also list there home pages, so did I,yet my article was deleted.

I went back into the article and deleted and changed the links,text and so on. Esoteric Online Radio is noted for its work within the Esoteric Community and its channels that are accessible online worldwide.

I would like that article back please,but I am not sure what else to do with it to NOT mention anyone alive etc as of course Esoteric,the team,its guests are very much alive. It is extremely ufair in my opinion to allow pages such as most haunted who just show paranormal investigations on TV,and delete Esoterics article when as well as paranormal investigations they do so much more than most haunted could ever do! And yes I know this can be daunting, and yes I have looked at various pages on wiki, and I simply checked your most haunted link to get a good idea of exactly what to do, infact there page is basically a huge advert! Please advise (not with the "I I know this is daunting" link etc) not being funny or sarcastic,its juts that will do me no good what so ever. I just want plain advice on what to change on that page!Wiki is confusing enough as it is... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esotericonline (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esotericonline (talk • contribs) 08:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

• As for other articles, please see WP:WAX
• The deletion had nothing to do with whether anyone was alive or not.
• Have you read this page yet?

All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric Online Template

One fingerpopping thing after another. It's late here, I'm going to bed. Tomorrow, will I be visiting "Deletion review"? -- Hoary (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Argh stray transclusions will be the bane of this site yet. I hid it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Howdy

I was checking out this article and immediately thought of you [5]. Hope you're doing well, take care. Postoak (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Houston city centre looked much smaller in 1968! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply

• Perry's Secret Hideout

There was already a hyperlink for Perry's Secret Hideout there so I just decided to create the page. Don't blame me.

-Poptarts12

The software makes hyperlinks for anything you type into the search box. Don't do it again, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Cuil

Hello! =) I removed that sentence because the article nowhere says that the representative claimed "not a crash". The article implies the architecture does not crash. So it is misleading and the mention of difficulties is redundant. Thanks. --Sracl (talk) 05:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's still incorrect. The company spokes person did not say "not with a crash", Cnet says that. --Sracl (talk) 05:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you clearly misread the source altogether but I have changed the wording. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyway its nice working with you =) --Sracl (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, likewise, ta :) Gwen Gale (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Salvo

I would like to protest the deletion of the above article as an A7 - group speedy deletion. This was an article for a team in an apparently notable video game league. There are at least 12 other teams in the league with articles. I do not know if they would in general survive a mass AFD on them, and I'm running in my mind whether to file such an AFD myself. But I do think that membership in such a league is at least an assertion of notability, and thus a disqualifier for A7 speedy. The page was recreated after your deletion, and showed up on the short pages list, which is where I found it. After I cleaned up the new stub a bit, I noticed the deleted history, and thus here I am. So I'm asking that the deleted history be restored so that the nicer older version can be restored instead of the current bare bones stub. After that, I will need to come to a descision on whether to mass-AFD the whole lot of teams. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any assertion of importance or significance in the original article about this video gaming group. There are many non-notable "champions of whatever" in the world. Moreover, if you're thinking of AfDing the lot of them, what's the pith? Cheers for letting me know your thoughts about this though, Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Procedural. If it's not a valid A7 deletion, then it's not a valid A7 deletion. Whether it would likely be deleted at AFD is irrelevant to whether something is a valld speedy deletion.

2) If I do AFD the lot, and we suddenly get a slew of references come out of the woodwork, then I would think that we would want the better page to remain, rather than the current minimal stub.

As for the assertion, as I said, in my mind membership in a notable league is the assertion. The question is whether membership is truely enough for separate notability of the teams, and IMHO that's a question for AFD, rather than A7 speedy.

Anyway, I am leaning towards doing the AFD, because I really do not think that the teams are all the notable, but I have a nagging suspicion that this could become an ugly AFD, as I suspect there will be a lot of people with personal interest in the pages remaining. Just a gut feeling, and not one that will prevent me from moving forward with an AFD, but... - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it was tagged and deleted as an A7 and if you're thinking of AfDing these articles anyway, there is utterly no need for a procedural tidy up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For point 2 above, and to let those evaluating the articles see the real state of the article in question, I disagree, but not strongly enough to make a big deal over it. Anyway, the mass AFD is now up. I'll go get out my flame-retardand long johns.  :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told I should speedy them all. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your anti closed source deletion behavior

Quoting a forum discussing you:

I think a lot of the people who edit Wikipedia, is like a lot of the people who edit DMOZ, are the kind of people who basically don't like commercial use of the internet. I have just seen comments from time to time and get the feeling that some people who volunteer to do that kind of job have a thing against those who are trying to make a living. So they will treat any commercial link as a kind of advert, to be removed.

In the case of Wikipedia, the editors are self-appointed. Anyone with a keyboard can edit the text. Moreover I think many Wikipedia pages have acquired 'protectors.' (Again, self-appointed.) In some cases they may be your competitors. It's often informative to read the Discussion and History pages associated with each entry.

Erm, I very rarely (if ever?) remove external links to commercial software so I don't know what you're talking about. As for the speedy deletion of articles, please read this page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is one example of your deletion galore: Comparison_of_web_servers

All links to the open source software work, but only a few of the proprietary versions are working. Looking in the history, most of the proprietary versions have been deleted.

I can give you more examples.

I've never edited that article. What are you talking about? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the above article: Comparison_of_web_servers, but the links going to non existing articles from this page.

What are you asking me to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Fairness would be good. If open source software is included then other software should be included as well. It is important to educate the consumer to allow them to have choices. Just because a product is commercial, does not mean that it is advertisement if included in Wikipedia.

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). I haven't edited this article so I still don't know what you're talking about. You'll have to be much more specific if you want my help. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

To all members of the Anarchist Task Force - about improvement of the AI-Wiki-page

I have just joined the Anarchist Task Force, and I have had some problems with publishing of my Anarchist International Wikipedia page, see my sandbox http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Anna_Quist/Anarchist_International for the present version/proposal. This page needs improvements to reach Wiki-consensus, and this should be a somewhat collective project to avoid a "COI"-template. As I am new to editing here on Wikipedia I need help with the page, I hope for your cooperation with this improvement. As an introduction to this cooperation, feel free to read this note on my talk page:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Anna_Quist#Message_to_all_anarchists_on_Wikipedia_-_Anarchy_is_cooperation_without_coercion.2Fdestruction.2Fdeletion_-_about_the_deletion_of_the_AI-Wiki-page_and_cooperation_to_achieve_an_updated_AI-page_with_general_Wiki-consent .

Any contribution, matter of fact criticism, to give input and advice, or even contribute to new sections, will be helpful, and is much appreciated. Please join in the project...

(Anna Quist (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Deir Yassin

Hi Gwen,
Could you take a look at last edits on Deir Yassin massacre, Deir Yassin Battle, Deir Yassin massacre, Deir Yassin Battle, ...
Thank you. Ceedjee (talk) 06:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Unhelpful. What would you like me to do? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Well...

From my experience we can leave the bad guy play in the article and fight with other contributors and within 2-3 weeks, everything in the article will be restored.

There will be two problems : many people will be upset and the bad guy will go on another article start again.

As uninvolved sysop, you have the right to warn any bad guy and requires he keeps cool and discusses on the talk pages... If not, they can be blocked...

nb: I am neither uninvolved (on these articles) nor sysop :-(

Ceedjee (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As a first step, would you like to move the article back to its original title? Gwen Gale (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's done. Ceedjee (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I see it's been move protected for a few weeks (that was helpful). Let's see how the editor does in the discussion? Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions about Joe Kleon Article

• see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Radioinfoguy
• also see

Hi Gwen. Thanks for your repeated help with vandalism of the Joe Kleon article. I appreciate your help in rewriting the article I originally worked on and have learned a lot about WIkipedia from watching experienced editors such as yourself. I am still at the beginning of the learning curve, but am enjoying WIkipedia, thanks partly to editors such as you.

My questsions concern someone who continues to put a notability tag on the article, even though you rewrote the article and removed the tag, stating that it is notable. Is there a way to solve this problem? This person is also adding an additional tag that I think was discussed and solved, during the article's deletion discussion page. Experienced editor Hoary said, in the deletion review, that anyone is allowed to edit this article. A month goes by, a simple addition was added, and again these tages are placed on the article. There is nothing malicious going on with my recent edit, just a recent addition of information, along with a few sources, from daily newspapers and magazines with wide circulation. The article does meet notability guidelines. I would suspect that it meets notability guidelines not only as a whole, but seperately, as a radio personality, recording engineer, and photographer. Are the few new sources added not acceptable? They are newspapers and magazines with extensive circulation. Please provide your thoughts on this. Thanks a lot! Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The short answer is one shouldn't edit an an article about oneself. This has been done, which stirred things up again. Joe Kleon is not notable as a writer or photographer. His career as a DJ and independent recording engineer is borderline notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, because the last time I checked, I was not Joe Kleon. So, is Hoary wrong for saying ANYONE could edit the article? With all due respect, you should not accuse someone of something, without incontrovertible proof. What proof do you have that I am Joe Kleon? We share the same IP? Where are IPs used exclusively, by one person? I happen to know that Kleon was miles away, when my edits were made, working at a concert. Do I need to have him send this proof to someone? The fact that we share an IP does not make us the same person. We do not even live in the same house.

Before doing the recent edit on the Joe Kleon article, I read carefully Wikipedia pages on editing.

"Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral." My edit was as neutral as the rest of the article, written by you, Ms. Gale. I made sure of that. Do you disagree? There are quite a few daily city newspapers and widely circulated magazines, which I used as sources, in my additions. The article contains sources are both primary and secondary, again meeting notability rules.

"Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." I think this applies, as his work in many areas, fits this criteria. This is subjective. If you, as a sysop, say Kleon is notable, and duffbeerforme says he is not, what can happen to reach a conclusion on this matter, without resorting to an edit war?

"Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Kleon's recording production house and work with major rock artists satisfies that criteria. His photography has also been published in several notable newspapers, magazines, and music releases. He has had hundreds of articles published in Cleveland. His work in radio, both as an announcer and network announcer has been broadcast in more than half the U.S. Yes, that makes him notable as a photographer, journalist, recording engineer, and radio announcer.

Wikipedia says to recriut and help new members and to try to make improvements to an article, rather than just tag it, try to delete it, and more on. The two who have tagged it have not done this, or even tried to inquire about making the article better. There are no links to Kleon's studio, or any advertising whatsoever, for any of his services, in my edits, or in the article you wrote, Ms. Gale. I included a MySpace link, only because I have seen many Wikipedia pages where such a link is included and not contested. Both indebiz and duffbeerforme have written articles with far less sources and notability than Kleon. I find it hypocritical that they both want this article to be deleted and seem to have it in for tagging notability, when the subject clearly meets many criteria for notability.

So, to sum up, the article meets many facets of notability and has reliable sources. It's time those who just like to tag and degrade articles move on, or take steps to help the article. That is my opinion. I am not going to edit this article daily, or even monthly. I am not going to be abusive in my editing. Weeks ago, Indebiz tried to have a checkuser run and did not post any evidence I was using this account abusively, so the request was closed. Why bother requesting a checkuser, if there was no abuse? If I see something that fits this article and is within the rules of WIkipedia, I should be allowed to add it, as long as it fits WIkipedia rules. My only edit to this article does. Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited the article text in over six weeks and even then, I did it to help Joe Kleon, so why are you telling me all this? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am asking you, as an experienced sysop, what can be done to stop what could become an edit war. You rewrote the article and removed a notability tag. I trust your opinion, being an experienced sysop. Should I just revert it every time a tag is added, because I do not agree with it? I do not want this to become an edit war and am asking your advice, since you obviously thought the subject was notable. How is a "verdict" reached, with an issue like this? Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't remove the tags until there is a consensus on the talk page to do so. I never thought the topic was notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I must have been mistaken when I concluded that when you rewrote the article and removed a notability tag, that you thought there was notability. Just so I understand you correctly, you rewrote an article and removed a notability tag on an article you thought was not notable? Clevelandmusic24 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Content has been added and changed since then, I don't support the current version of the article since it implies notability which is supported neither by Wikipedia policy nor the sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Five additional lines, supported by sources, including daily newspspers in Toledo, Canton, and Alliance, along with Cleveland Magazine, make the subject less notable? All these sources have their own Wikipedia pages and have extensive circulation. Another source added was Sport Karate Magazine, the officially sanctioned magazine from the National Blackbelt League, which has competitors around the world. Another was msn. I feil to see how these sources do anything but add notability. Can you please explain? I just do not understand.

The subject has multiple mentions in the Canton Repository. They wrote an article on him as a radio personality and have published his photography. The Blabbermouth website source, according to it's Wikipedia article, gets over a million hits a month. Brave Words Magazine is distributed in 23 countries, according to it's Wiki article. Kleon's mentions, both as a photographer and radio DJ are many, in both of these sources. Do a search and see. Just from these sources, his accomplishments have reached millions of people. FMQB is a radio trade publication and is distributed to stations across the United States. Add daily newspapers in Toledo (one of the country's top 100 newspapers, by circulation - 126,000), Alliance (circulation 14,000), Scene Magazine, (with a weekly distribution of over 100,000 copies), Cleveland Free Times, with a circulation of over 75,000 weekly), and Classic Rock Magazine, with a circulation of almost 70,000. I mean really. With all this, the subject STILL does not meet notability guidelines? I have seen so many articles without a percentage of these notable sources. Why are these articles allowed? I have read the notability guidelines over and over and this subject meets them. Can you please explain why you feel it does not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelandmusic24 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear the topic is not notable. I'm sorry I tried to help, since keeping this article has only brought back the same old worries and disruptions. I may send it back to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please exaplin, using Wikipedia notability guidelines, why it is so "clear" that the topic is not notable? You must be basing your opinion on Wiki guidelines for notability, right?? The "same old worries" are from two people (not a large number, by any means), who IMO are upset that their votes for delete didn't result in the article being removed. They have both written articles with far less sources, on far less notable topics. Other, more experienced editors, like yourself and Hoary, changed your mind on this toppic's notability, during the AFD. Now that more reliable sources are added and the article is expanded a little, you are going to put it back in AfD? I wish I could say I understand. Can you at least explain why, in your opinion, this subject doesn't meet Wikipedia notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clevelandmusic24 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's upset, they're only bored. As I said before, I rewrote and restored the article in trying to help the non-notable Mr Kleon, since he has some borderline notability in northern Ohio. His career has not gotten significant independent coverage, only industry blurbs and listings. Now someone is trying to add utterly non-notable stuff about his photography, but taking published snaps of famous folks is not in itself notable at all. The likelihood this will carry on without end is growing ever stronger. Please stop badgering me about this, all you're doing is making me think the conflict of interest and other worries are worse than ever. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There are much more than 'industry' blurbs, in this article. You know that. I am of the belief that you should not threaten to do something, just do it. Threatening is nothing but a sad attempt to try to assert power. Therefore, I have acted on your threat and nominated this article for deletion. Please vote to delete. I must say that your abuse of power, at least to me, is sickening. Radioinfoguy (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Apollo 1 prayer photo caption

Hello Gwen- Just a note to tell you that as I know little about the above subject, I changed the caption only to improve its wording while maintaining the tone and meaning. I had the impression that the astronauts were having fun with the picture, and I presume they were in fact, though that may not be the case. There is another WP article which makes a reference to a source for the context in which the photo was taken and/or given, but I haven't read the source: Joseph_Francis_Shea#cite_ref-27. In any case, if we are not presenting the photo as having been taken in a humorous vein, I wouldn't have used the words strike a pose to describe them praying. I first saw the Apollo 1 article today, but you seem to be fairly active on it, so I'll defer to you on any further change to that caption. -Eric ^talk 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They were highly aware of many flaws in CM-012 (though not all of them) and very much afraid for their lives but were indeed willing to risk them to be part of the project. They posed for the photo with the dark humour of test pilots but they weren't kidding, they were trying to send a message about their worries by using the agency's wonted, cheery photo publicity (propaganda) outlet. I'm ok with the wholly neutral wording as it now stands, though. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand their motivation. If we can verify that they meant the photo to be humorous, it is not non-neutral to acknowledge their intent. If we can't verify this, or for some other reason choose not to acknowledge an element of humor in the photo, I think it would be better language to drop strike a pose--which I read as possibly implying humorous intent--in favor of something like the astronauts pose in prayer around a model of the command module. -Eric ^talk 17:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Strike a pose does not in any way mean humorous. Moreover, I've never seen a reliable source which asserted they were trying to be funny. Grissom rather clearly knew the thing was a deathtrap but what was he going to do, quit? Hardly. Instead, he did what he could to get the thing fixed, but was very unlucky. As for the astronauts pose in prayer around a model of the command module, we can't know what was on their minds when the shutter snapped so coming anywhere near saying in prayer is bound to mislead some readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I don't think strike a pose necessarily means humorous,--that's why I wrote possibly implying above--but, given my impression that they might have been engaging in some dark humor there, I (maybe alone among all English speakers) might read an implication of humor in this particular context. Sorry, I didn't mean to engage you in an epic usage debate here. Cheers. -Eric ^talk 18:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Test pilots. :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(bumping up indents a little) While not making any comment on the wording, I'm a little concerned about the opinions expressed. "very much afraid for their lives", and "Grissom ... clearly knew the thing was a deathtrap". While I think the record supports a number of concerns on Grissom's part, I'm not familiar with anything that would suggest that he felt it was a death trap or was afraid for his life (more so than on any other mission). If I'm wrong on this, please correct me.

Regarding the photo, it would appear that the receiptents (Storms and Shea) didn't think the astronauts were "trying to send a message". They (Storms and Shea) were well aware of the issues, although they disagreed on severity, prioritization, and solutions. I would think that if Storms and Shea felt that that the photo represented something they weren't aware of, they both would not have proudly displayed the picture in their offices and homes. It's my opinion that the picture and inscription represented a dark humor, an in-joke. Finally, since I'm on the subject, I think the CM gets too much blame for the fire and the death of the crew. It was insane to conduct a test at those pressure levels, which did not represent what the cabin would be like in space. While the tragedy did improve the Command and Service Modules, that's not to say that if AS-204/Apollo 1 had flown with CM-012 there would have been some other disaster. Even a spark during spaceflight, while very dangerous and potentially lethal, would not have caused a fire as rapid as what happened during the plugs out test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckOp (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I said that stuff on my own talk page, I never said it would be ok in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, which is why I said opinions. I was also expressing some of my own. From a pilot, space buff and AE admirer, thanks for your edits to this and other aviation articles. Charles Oppermann (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. By the bye, although we may not agree (wholly) on what they were likely thinking when the picture was snapped (it now has a neutral caption anyway) I do agree with you that most of the blame may indeed go to the daftly high pressure and oxygen level. When I first looked into this, I was amazed to learn that, only for the test, they'd pumped up the pressure in the CM like a shaken can of Coca-Cola. Hence the structural stresses were more or less, kinda like what would happen in orbit, but the conditions inside were very much not the same as they would be in orbit. As the article says, even a block of aluminium will burn like wood in an atmosphere like that (and all the velcro blew up straight off, it seems). Not to mention the risks were already described in the literature: How they came to think any chance of a stray spark could be skirted, I do not know. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Infamy

Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in f'ya; yes, the ogre Gwen Gale is written up here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So I took out the photography plug and may yet AfD this. More than anything, I'm worried you-know-who may be up to his footwear games again :/ Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I might have misread the date, GMA Philippines report states[6]: "Ex-Google employees to launch search engine ...The end result is Cuil, pronounced “cool." Backed by $33 million in venture capital, the search engine plans to begin processing requests for the first time Monday. For starters, Cuil’s search index spans 120 billion Web pages. Hence, Monday = August 5...." Apology if I misread or misinterpreted the GMA link. Regards.--Florentino floro (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you mistook the date, Cuil was launched last Monday. What startled me was that the article had already made this very clear, which leads me to think you didn't even bother reading the short article before adding wrong content to it. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the word Monday, and I thought that Monday is this coming Monday, as it says, it will process on Monday for the first time, the first request. After your sent me the message, I realized my error that Monday refers to the finished launch. Apology for my incorrect reading of Monday. In fact, I was concentrating on the 120 billion figure. Hoping for your understanding of my predicament. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I do understand, try to be more careful with stuff like dates, ok? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Sorry, for my mistake. Actually, I blame myself, since I rarely edit, using only one link, and I very rarely use our Philippine GMA Network top link here, reports, since it only copies from AFP. However, today, I could not find the Afp source, so I posted the GMA link. I am just unlucky on this link.

Florentino floro (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Florentino floro (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I wonder what color the link of WikiSex will be.

(breaking in here) Hey Hoary, I'm so thick, what's this about then? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, it's no more an evil idea brewing in a dark part of my cranium. -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone could make a tonne of cash from something like that, methinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried Cuil? It's . . . interesting. One thing they haven't done is weed out (or massively downgrade) all the utterly pointless (or so I'd thought) commercial scrapes of Wikipedia. I mean, Wikipedia contains an awful lot of crap, but I for one would prefer to take my crap straight than diluted with adverts for impotence pills or whatever. I looked up one subject about which I'd written, and on the third or fourth page of hits I even got a pile of unlikely commercial scrapes of my WP user page (on which this subject is barely mentioned). So right now, Cuil looks like a way to look at a kind of shadowy, second web, one that is generated by algorithms from stuff that may or may not be worthwhile, that's possible because processing power and storage space cost next to nothing, but that serves no discernible purpose. Unsettling. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, like "everyone" else, I did vanity searches, since one tends to have a deeper understanding of relevant search results about oneself. Spot on as you say, I'm amazed at all the scraper and spam sites which Cuil throws up, but which Google filters out (and this is when Cuil is clearly not overloaded). Moreover, most of the pictures next to my name had nothing to do with me (a very few did). No porno, but lots of unhelpful scraper trash. Google's filters keep this "shadow web" more or less hidden (unless one clicks on the "show everything" thingy-link, which one never does) but Cuil shoves all this up to the top and it's very unhelpful. Moreover, when one skives away all this garbage, the outcome is rather much the same as Google which is to say, I didn't find one new, helpful link about my stuff on Cuil and believe me, I looked! Hopefully! :) So yeah, I'm startled that all those ex-Google folks with acronyms after their names (and 33 million dollars) could only come up with that. Moreover, the founder's a woman and I was hoping she had come up with something thrilling :/ Ok, maybe they will yet, we'll see, but so far it's nothing I'd use to get anything meaningful done. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say, yes, processing power and storage are so dirt cheap these days, I'm stunned that all they could do with it is find spam, with no hint at being any keener at relevance. Spam-skirting search algorithms are not hard to write, they take time/money to write, is all, maybe $100,000-200,000 from scratch, it's not that big of a deal. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it ought not to be difficult to locate WP scrapes, and (aside from one or two that don't have an obnoxious degree of advertising, useful for when WP is down) and to blacklist or hugely downgrade the lot. That would be a huge help toward seeing what else of value is out there. -- Hoary (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Ann Brennan Article

Gwen,

The article concerning energy healer Barbara Ann Brennan was deleted under the G11: Blatant Advertising policy.

I honestly do not recall in full detail the content of the article nor whether it was written in a style that seemed more like advertising than encyclopedic. Personally, I only made rather minor contributions to that page such as providing Barbara Brennan's birthdate and updating the geographical location of the Barbara Brennan School of Healing in Europe. However, I do feel that it is important for there to be an article on Barbara Brennan and her work in the field of energy medicine. Whence, I feel inclined to volunteer some of my time to re-write that article in a more professional style that is worthy of an encyclopedia. However, I would prefer not to have to do this from scratch. Despite the style in which the deleted article was, there was some useful information there that I would like to salvage, rewrite and then use for a new and improved article on Barbara Brennan. Would it be possible for you to provide me with an archive of the page as it existed just before you deleted it?

Kind regards, Henrik L Nordmark. --Henriknordmark (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Henrik L Nordmark.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Henriknordmark (talk • contribs) 08:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've put it at User:Henriknordmark/sandbox. If this content is sourced and thoroughly rewritten so as not to read like an advertisement it will not be a candidate for speedy deletion. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you for your help!--Henriknordmark (talk) 09:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Henrik L Nordmark

ANI

There is an ANI thread about you. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Valid Sources

Stop removing valid sources from the Joe Kleon article. It is an abuse of power. Radioinfoguy (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Those are online images of photographs you took, not sources. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I see you recently reverted an edit by User:Florentino floro. I thought you might be interested to know that there is an open RFC (here[7]) about his editing. It seems to me that many editors don't notice that there is a pattern of his not paying attention to the rest of the article he happens to be editing, your experience and comments would be welcome. maxsch (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

All I saw was that one (very) careless edit. You're welcome to cite my brush with this editor and there do seem to be some underlying worries but I don't think this is enough background for me to comment in the RfC. Please let me have your thoughts though? Gwen Gale (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Information is true but can it be used??

Hi Gwen Gale. How's things going? I came across a very important site the goes into further detail of an article I watch over. It would help improve the article even more if the information is added and used to back up statements that need citation already in the article. see here Mcelite (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

What article are you thinking of? As it happens, Either way, I've seen this web page before and I don't trust it. To begin with, although on an edu domain, it's a plug for a photo exhibit and doesn't talk about or cite any sources. The authors are an aritist and a photographer and these pictures of ethnic Africans dressed up in sundry traditional native American costumes could be and likely are set ups. This said, yes, many black folks did marry/drift into native American groups many of which, like the Cherokees and Lumbees, in turn married/drifted into European groups but I wouldn't trust this web page as a reliable source on any of it. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Gwen. Have a good day.Mcelite (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime

When someone gets banned, they get listed at WP:BANNED. I've gone ahead and listed him there. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was waiting a bit to see if anyone spoke up about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts in search of a thinker

Yo Gwen, I happened across the above linked article at AfD and did a little sleuthing for sources. I turned up quite a bit, more than enough to write a decent verifiable article, but it's outside my sphere of competence and interest. I've added the references to the article but haven't attempted to tackle the OR. Judging from your comment in the AfD you seem to know a little more about the subject than I, so I was wondering if you'd care to take a second look at the article and see if it can be referenced. Mahalo, Skomorokh 13:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Why not do something altogether new (and cited) about it in Bion's article? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a diehard splittist, and deleting articles makes baby Jesus cry? Skomorokh 16:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Each time someone says 'It's for the children,' a dozen get snuffed." Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Radioinfoguy

Why did you revert my edit? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert Tiptoey? User talk:Radioinfoguy had many sockpuppets and is indef blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I was only putting all the old content back. I didn't remove the {{indef}} template though. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be helpful if you reverted your edit, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

What's so wrong with restoring the past content? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The user's indef blocked. Please revert your edit, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

All that content can be found in the talk page history if needed, there is really no need to have it laying around. Tiptoety ^talk 22:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Lesbian

Why you removed the lesbian image added by me? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was misleading, more so for the article header. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it misleading? It depicts sex between two women and the image has cultural significance. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

To put it one way (there are many others though), from WP:IMAGE, Rice is best represented with an image of plain rice, not fried rice. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have a point. But if you compare the other images, for example the image which was previously present in the lead, two women holding their hands, I don't think it is typical representation of lesbianism. The image also does not prove that the women are even lesbians. If you think the Chinese image is sexually explicit, then I will move it below rather than keeping it in lead. However I must have to say Image:Lesbian married couple.jpg or Image:Lesbiennes at Gay Pride 2005.JPG are better representatives of lesbianism than Image:Lesbian Couple from back holding hands.jpg. So the lead should include one of these two images as good representative image of lesbianism. Also the Chinese image is not describing typical lesbianism, it is true, the image is describing how Chinese art view lesbianism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the other image in the header either, not at all, but at least it's wholly neutral and contemporary. I won't mind if you remove them both, please. As for Image:Lesbiennes at Gay Pride 2005.JPG , I don't agree with you, it's a fun snap but it's not neutral, those two girls are decked out for a parade in Paris, it's hardly representative even of them. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then I am removing the image. Will you mind if I place it in the Culture section? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's too explicit for the main article. I was going to put it in Lesbian sexual practices but the image page has no information about where this image came from, so I'm not even ready to believe it's Chinese. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be ok in Lesbian_erotica though. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination)

Hi there! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constantian Society (2nd nomination) has just been relisted for a second time due to a lack of people offering an opinion. I listed Constantian Society for deletion after it was mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The George Nethercutt Foundation, which you commented on. It would be great if you could cast an eye over the Constantian Society article and deletion discussion, and offer an opinion, since it is in some ways a similar case. Cheers! --Stormie (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Heya! Although it doesn't meet WP:N and I said as much in the AfD I won't be sad if it's kept :) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article: University Christian Outreach

Hi Gwen, I noted that the University Christian Outreach article has been deleted. I'm not entirely sure about the "statement of notability" requirement - it's an established organization, and there were sources cited. Any thoughts? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely curious and want to do it correctly!) Also, is the deleted article archived anywhere? Because multiple users edited it, I don't have article as it was written when it was deleted. Thanks for your help- Paperclip123 (talk) 00:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The rollback

You are correct that the use of rollback then was not appropriate, and should have been done using undo or regular revert, but these edits hopefully show that Otolemur crassicaudatus realizes this. I see no cause for alarm for now. Acalamari 16:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes and cheers for the input ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! :) Acalamari 16:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Owen Farrell

Could I please have the contents of the article for a sandbox so when he does play in the Guinness Premiership then I can roll out the article.Londo06 17:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye, happy to, please see User:Londo06/sandbox and all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks.Londo06 18:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Leslie

Gwen, would you mind taking another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Leslie which you closed as no consensus. It may not be immediately clear, but I believe that all comments for keeping come from the same user having signed themselves a couple of different ways (as "Christa Driscoll" or User:Avestriel) or not at all (all IP comments). I'm not suggesting sockpuppetry, just a lack of understanding of process. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, yes, I also thought most (if not all) of the keep comments came from one polite person (the article creator). However, even after relisting there was only one delete comment (other than the nom) along with what I read as a neutral. Moreover, given the national television broadcasts and awards, this person could have borderline notability as a sleight of hand entertainer in the states, hence my no consensus close. Following your note above, I looked closely at the sources (which were hidden owing to the lack of a {{reflist}}) and found that almost none were independent sources about this person. I'll re-close this as a delete because sources are so lacking and the only keep comments came from an SPA. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking another look. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to. You may have seen, when it comes to AfDs I only close those in the oldest backlogs, which means some tend to be very tough and I don't mind the odd and helpful nudge :) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Nicktoons: Planet Quest

You forgot the talk page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• Also, regarding this afd: CSG? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Typo. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Phillip B Taylor MBE

Hi. I speedied this as an A7, then undid that as, if he has an MBE, doesn't that count as "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." in WP:BIO and therefore notable ? I admit the article lacks any encyclopedic content, so if it's being deleted, wouldn't another category - such as lack of content be more appropriate ? I'm not questioning that this article is of dubious value, just interested in your reasoning on this sort of article :-) ..... CultureDrone (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, forget that - he fails the 'Basic criteria' section of WP:BIO, doesn't he ? D'oh ! CultureDrone (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

why did you deleted the article "DWYG"?

why did you deleted the article "DWYG"? Actually it's just a new radio station here in the Philippines! It's not a hoax, it's true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampkabayan06 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

SeeWikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWYG. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

can i re-write the article "DWYG" w/out being deleted? please tell me, what will be the requirements for an article so it will not be considered a hoax. thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampkabayan06 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to cite reliable, independent sources, only for starters. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

is it ok for you if you give me some examples? 'coz still i can't understand... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ampkabayan06 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I linked above, please see WP:RS. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

bands

So sad to see angry band members making edits like this and this, instead of reading this and asking for a copy of the article for their userspace. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there!

Hi, it's me again, the editor of the article "DWYG" that was deleted recently. I'm here 'coz I just wanna ask you something. While I re-write the said article, I saw a notice above which indicates that I'm re-writing a deleted article which is said to be a hoax! Is this mean that i'm banned from re-writing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.167 (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Until some sources show up, you could take it that way, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Bwanga

I didn't create the above article, but when you do NPP, you should at least take 2 seconds to do a quick Google Search .. the article sure shouldn't be PROD'd ... sure, it needed work, but a good editor TAGS it for improvement, and does NOT simply delete. BMW(drive) 23:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Marcel Bwanga

Daunting? Wikpedia policy is quite simple actually, so none of this is daunting. [snip! rudely transcluded essay] is one of the most intelligent essays on Wikipedia. Going overboard and doing protections is the admittance that one screwed up badly BMW(drive) 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Same conversation on Peter Symonds page, Gwen. I endorse the deletion. Tan ǀ 39 23:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tan. Three admins have deleted it so far, I've also thrown on some salt. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, and I used to believe in "Assume Good Faith". Get some sleep people, return to smart editing in the morning :) BMW(drive) 23:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Instead of all this bitching and moaning about it, and calling us admins evil, you could have simply shown me exactly how this guy meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC - which you never did, despite my multiple queries on PS's talk page. Either you can't, or you won't. Moreover, per WP:OVERTAGGING, "Placing too many tags can be seen as disruptive, or as a violation of 'Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point'. It is very rare that more than 2 or 3 tags are needed, even on the worst articles." For the record, you placed 11 tags on this article. Tan ǀ 39 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It was overtagged because I put the HANGON on the page, put a few tags to show I was serious about doing some work on it, then the article was suddenly GONE. WTF is HANGON for if it's going to be ignored? BMW(drive) 10:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The hangon tag will make most admins look twice, but doesn't stop deletion. If you need a few hours, try {{inuse}} instead. None of this will help for long though, if the topic doesn't assert meaningful notability. If you don't agree with Wikipedia's notability or other inclusion standards that's ok but your thoughts on these won't save an article which fails WP:CSD or WP:N. Moreover, making borderline comments about other editors (personal attacks), as you've done, is almost always less than helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attacks??

It's funny. Because of an ameri-euro-centricity, most editors tend to focus on what defines "success" by western standards. I know, I was one of them for a long time. Deleting then PROTECTING an article based on Western Standards when it could not be looked at from that POV, then failing to allow a neutral editor who was 100% willing to CORRECT the article was truly the act of either a bad editor or at least an editor that was having bad moment. My statement above was very clearly not a personal attack - it was based on the old adage that things look different after a good night's sleep, and that by giving you the benefit of the doubt that you ARE a good editor, it was a recommendation to back away for a bit and look at things with a fresh set of eyes. Plus, check the emoticon. Don't get all persnickety on Wikipedia, you'll start taking it personally. BMW(drive) 10:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one. As for the topic, please see WP:MUSIC, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoration request

Please restore Federazione Italiana Carrom to User:Hpt lucky/Federazione Italiana Carrom (Hpt lucky being the principal author of most of the carrom articles) or to its original location. As you can probably tell from what's going on on his user page, a bunch of articles on verifiable information about national International Carrom Federation affiliates are subject to merge discussion (and one AFD, which should conclude with a "merge" result, and some prods which I've replaced with merge tags). The FIC article probably does not need to be an article by itself, but the information in it is easily verifiable, and the article should absolutely not have been speedied on the notability grounds that you cited, since a national-level sports governing body is notable by definition. I strongly suspect that the eventual consensus will be to merge all of this stuff in to the ICF article, and that's what I'm pushing for myself. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

That article was an A7. It made no assertion of significance or importance and was clearly a platform for a website link. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Institute for advanced technology

Hi Gwen i'm still a little puzzled as to why my article on the institute for advanced technology was deleted. I understand that you believe it to be advertising but it is no more advertising than the many other articles about research institutes, listed in Wikipedia. Some other research institutes are actually blatantly for-profit organisations who make mega-bucks through private research contracts. I should know. I've worked for several of them. It was my experiences with other NGOs etc which led me to find the Institute for Advanced Technology. They are a really good bunch of concerned scientists and engineers who actually love researching their fields and try to keep their institute afloat. How can i convince you?

Aeromantis (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Aero

Hi. Some of those other articles should likely be deleted too. Either way, if you can show this org has gotten meaningful independent coverage in reliable sources, that's the Wikipedia threshold. Also please have a look at this page if you haven't read it yet. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"religious nuts"

Its nothing to feel sorry about, and if I had not been a bigmouth two months ago there would have been no issue at all.

Although I intend to keep away from editing the Jesus myth hypothesis article, as I said, I extend you you the same request I made to Vassyana previously [8], because I think the poor condition of the article reflects the editorial problems that can be seen on the talk page. Be well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for understanding! As for Jesus myth hypothesis, although the article could be helpful as a take on published thinking about this topic I think it's mostly too long and very sloppily written, with odd bits of original research which sway the meanings of whole paragraphs. Things get worse as the article drones on: The take on platonics is muddled. Not many published theological historians (I can't think of any) have hinted the New Testament's allegorical and metaphorical spins altogether mean there was no historical Jesus Christ (for me, that kind of thinking is nothing but fuzzy codswallop). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I hadn't been directly that at you (or anybody) in particular. But it's a short line from labelling activities "disruptive" to somebody going "Where's my banhammer at?"

For what it's worth, I agree that edit summaries are helpful. But forced ones aren't. It's not worth an AN/I thread condemning someone over. Just let them fail an RfA and clew into it a bit better. WilyD 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's the mix of non-consensus edits and a lack of edit summaries that makes for disruption. I wasn't condemning anyone, I was asking the user to use edit summaries, for which there is wide consensus. It's also quite true that an editor might be more quickly blocked for disruption of some kind, owing also to a lack of edit summaries. Meanwhile nobody here is forced to do anything, we're all volunteers. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

First Baptist Church (Hammond, Indiana)

Thanks for the note. Yes, please do unprotect it now that there are "many eys" on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NHS End of Life Care deletion.

Hello Gwen

Can you state why you deleted this page - I'd hardly begun - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheriffspayne (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read this page, then put up the {{inuse}} tag and try again. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a really thin line here

I could have used your logic during this fiasco. Thanks for weighing in on Joji Obara. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! Yeah, I saw that and steered way clear of it :) I see the bounds of threats not as lines but fuzzy swaths. Mostly, I won't block unless the wording is more or less "I will take/have taken legal action." I otherwise only warn but if someone else blocks, I likely won't say anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "celebrity" photo

I'm sure there's a reason to do this but could you let me know why a photo of a celebrity in the lede was removed. Banjeboi 04:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Nothing against her. I don't think a photo of any widely-known person should be in the lead, since this could misleadingly hint at a consensus among editors that she's representative of (or speaks with "authority" for) lesbians or lesbianism. Also, I have a thing about celebrity culture creep, which nettles me :) Gwen Gale (talk) 04:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Banjeboi 07:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronologies

This "Wikipedia" think has been around longer than I'd realized. -- Hoary (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe he got it muddled with mp3.com or something. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Super Badnik

Hi. Would you mind explaining why you indef blocked this user? Reading their unblock requests and the response to them it seems that they tweaked their signature a lot, but I assume there is more to it than that. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think the block notice and 2 unblock declines say all that's needed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is all there is to it, then I am very uncomfortable with this block. This editor seems to have made plenty of article space edits, which seem to have been of good quality. I am not sure why them playing with their signature and interacting with other users makes them disruptive, and warrants an indef block. Would you object to me unblocking them? TigerShark (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This has utterly nothing to do with their signatures. The unblock requests have been declined by other admins, please do not unblock. If they're here to edit the encyclopedia they'll sway the reviewing admins soon enough. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still uncomfortable with this block. This is a user who had made decent contributions and they have been indef blocked for some reason that is still not clear to me. There are many users who are genuinely disruptive and are not indef blocked. I don't see how this user can demonstrate any change when they are unblocked. If we are expecting the user to beg for their right to edit, especially when they don't seem to have done anything wrong, then I am even less comfortable. I will not undo your block without your permission. Will you reconsider? Thanks TigerShark (talk) 22:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, Super Badnick has made a canny legal threat. That's "wrong." Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

So we have managed to turn a user who was contributing positively into an enemy, simply because we didn't like the way that they were communicating with others (even though it had no actual impact on anybody else) and dealt out an indef block. If the user withdraws the threat, can we stop this escalation, unblock them and hope they go back to their constructive editing? TigerShark (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you mean to help, but I wholly disagree with your take on this. Both of them have been badgering throughout and their contribs are OR edits to video games they play all the time. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see. With the OR, has this been addressed, and what was the editor's response? Regarding the badgering, what form did it take? Thanks TigerShark (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You know what you're doing, you're an admin, please stop. If you have questions, please see the block notices and unblock declines along with the AN thread, talk pages and contribs. If you would like to contest the blocks, please do so at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network. Thanks, sorry we can't agree on this one. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What am I meant to stop? I am trying to understand your reasoning here. You say they are making OR edits and badgering, so I am trying to understand what has gone on. TigerShark (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean, please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP_seemingly_used_as_a_social_network. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, someone appears to be unhappy, and has started a discussion on you at ANI, here. D.M.N. (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks for thinking to tell me though. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

User:207.194.108.93

Hi Gwen, you blocked User:207.194.108.93 for edit warring this morning. FYI, that user also edits from User:207.232.97.13 and continued warring from that IP for several hours after your block. Thanks. Mr Miles (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Great image on your User page BTW, I love the pre-raffs and their influences :) Mr Miles (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always had a soft spot for some of the Pre-Raphaelites, I think it's their heed of detail and craft :)

Meanwhile I've blocked User:MisterAlbert‎ for 2 weeks and all of his other accounts/sockpuppets indefinitely. Please let me know if any more show up. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For taking care of this. Enigma ^message 05:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Darkspots (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Job (NOT)

Your blocks of S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R., Talon, Person, and SAMF show that, rather than help new members, you would rather push your power around and block them. Again and again, you throw Wiki policy out the window, just to suit your own need for power. Does it make you feel good? Thank God, other editors, with more common sense than you, have unblocked S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. You ned to have your admin status reviewed and revoked. You are becoming more of a detriment to the project every day. Maybe you need to take some time away from the project and reflect on how you have treated people lately. I am disgusted. 66.197.38.153 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there's an existing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP seemingly used as a social network about this. lifebaka++ 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just let it go, Joe Kleon. For Christ sake, aren't you embarrassed? You are in your 40's and you act like a 4-year-old. From what I can tell, the lady helped you out by creating a page for you even though you aren't particularly notable. Attempting to bombard Wiki, Youtube, Myspace, and any other available mediums in order to make yourself seem important, doesn't make you important. Stop stalking the lady and others for refusing to feed your narcissism. Get over it.Divided We Fall (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking and removing wasteful and useless MySpace entries from various user pages. It has become a compounding issue that no one wants to take up -- although there is consensus towards blocking or removing userpages on accounts that are being used for mostly chatting or for non-article maintenance. I recalled a case where I removed a lot of images from one's userpage -- six images of yourself in various MySpace-y poses for someone who is underage was a little too much, yet I received flack from a variety of unexperienced editors.

Kudos for taking a stand, then defending your actions even as one administrator wheel warred and removed the blocks without consensus or discussion (discussion while people sleep is not what I call conductive). seicer | talk | contribs 02:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Unknown the Hedgehog for WP:MYSPACE

I'm wondering if you can explain this block in a little more detail. On its face, the idea of blocking users for "hogging the servers" by posting to talk, etc bothers me anyway. Of the user's ~400 edits, ~200 are to article space. This ratio isn't so terrible, even if the vast majority of these articles are related to Sega and other such video games. Looking at random edits he has made, he seems to be adding content and copyediting these articles, both of which are functions that are useful to the encyclopedia. I'm curious what harm you believe this editor is doing to warrant an indef block. Is there something in this user's history I'm missing? Oren0 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there's an existing thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#WP seemingly used as a social network about this. lifebaka++ 19:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You must be dreadfully in need of one of these right now!

lifebaka++ has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! I also suggest getting a box of animal crackers. They're always tasty. And remember to start with the head!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

munch :9 Gwen Gale (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I won't be watching your articles at all and hadn't planned on it. I don't think I made any mistakes, but as a group we admins canny botched how this was handled. Happily, we've also cleaned it all up fast as we could. I'm happy to see you may be taking something meaningful from all this, please try to source your contributions whenever/wherever you can though, your edits will stick hard if you do ;) Likewise with image policy, you can't put copyrighted images in your user space and there are tight bounds as to how they can be used in articles (never mind the Sonic images tend to be so cute). Please feel free to ask me for help whenever you like. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I do think that the whole situation wasn't handeled properly, and I hope that this whole fiasco doesn't happen to anyone again. I do, however, try to source everything that I may add to an article. And thanks for the tip on the images. I'll se fanart to use instead, as examples. Regards! Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. Soul 21:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"We've also cleaned it all up fast as we could?" WE? You had nothing to do with it, Gwen. Let's be honest. You were barely civil in the matter. Trying to take credit for the work of other editors (who cleaned up YOUR mess) is not so ethical. You think these kids don't know what went on? Looking at your edit history, you really do need to take some time away from the project. Your judgement has been clouded lately and other editors are wasting time, cleaning up your messes. 66.197.38.153 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Joe, I've blocked this IP for block evasion. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DividedWeFall; this behaviour is approaching stalking. From all I have seen and read of both the Kleon and "using Wikipedia as MySpace" issues, Gwen has acted properly according to both the policy and spirit of Wikipedia; she has been more than fair toward users guilty of vandalism, flagrant and repeated attempts to circumvent blocks and other disciplinary methods, and self-aggrandizement at the expense of Wikipedia's integrity. Those attacking her appear to be doing so as a form of spiteful "payback" because they either don't understand, or won't admit to, their culpability in terms of their harmful actions to the project. Rachel Summers (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There don't seem to be any problems here. A good admin should have enemies, especially the kind that are already blocked and banned from wikipedia. Don't let people who aren't here to help troll around and stir up problems. Gwen's doing fine. Dayewalker (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, just leaving a supportive message. ^_^ (Though I would be happy to delete it if Gwen finds it at all objectionable.) Rachel Summers (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta Rachel! :) 'n cheers for everything, Dayewalker ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Real Player Manager

Hi

I dont know why the Real Player Manager page was delete was for having a link i think is a good info can you please give me the details of what was wrong.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipeen99 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I know this can be daunting. Have you read this page yet? All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

PermaStubAboutPolishVillageBot

Do you think there is anything that can be done? Or should I just go hide back under my rock?
Kww (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As you know, we agree about this bot. You could slow it down for awhile, but do you want to spend your volunteer time doing that? Truth be told, some folks like running scripts and Wikipedia, as a widely viewed website sitting on a sprawling networked db, is Hollywood for that kind of thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

deletion of article EDLOS

I am the original author of several articles on Wikipedia relating to music and art topics.

It has come to my attention that my article about the noted Bay Area a cappella group the EDLOS was deleted on June 7 of this year. As the article was truthful and accurate, and this group meets standards 1, 7, 9, and 12 for "notability," as mentioned in the article, I'm a little puzzled as to why it was tagged for deletion.

Perhaps you could enlighten me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigor (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I only deleted a redirect. User:Selket deleted The EDLOS. Going by the deleted text, it doesn't clearly indicate how this topic meets WP:MUSIC. However, perhaps with some verifiable sources the text could be clarified enough to meet the threshold of Wikipedia's notability policy. You might leave a note on User:Selket's talk page if you want to try rewriting the article. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

[Edit clash!] The EDLOS was tagged for deletion with the comment Age old article that imho should be deleted anyway since it's promotional, as a band member has worked on the page, so NPOV. Also written as an ad, plus notability problem. It was then deleted. (The deleted text read in part Bass Avi Jacobson replaced Ed Cohn in 2005, and "AviJacobson" was an editor.) That's in addition to the information you have already received. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Fclass

I think Fclass decided to edit as an IP. Note the comments about Indian heritage and the edits to articles about racing. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It's him (the location also fits). I've reset his block from indefinite to 1 year. Thanks for letting me know. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

Hi. I'm seeking the assistance of an administrator. User:Joyson Noel keeps inserting false information in Naguib Mahfouz and List of former Muslims using sources that do not back his allegations about Mahfouz being born into a Muslim family. He placed a vandalism warning on my talk page and I replied with my own warning asking him not to insert unsourced material. He replied here saying, among other things, "The fact that you decided to concentrate on deleting properly referenced facts such as these shows me as to what a biased and POV oriented person that you actually are." and "Also, please stop sending spiteful and outright ridiculous warnings of vandalism to me, if you dont know what the hell you are talking about. What you basically did was just copy and paste my warning. You are instead better off just sending them to yourself. At least, that would be something useful. On the other hand, if you have Obsessive-compulsive disorder, then i do sympathize. Please, continue sending me more nonsensical messages, although consulting a trained mental health professional might be advisable." 77.42.183.110 (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This is from another reply he left me on his own talk page: "Why dont you get a job, instead of simply vandalizing articles and copy-pasting my warning to you in my own talk page. These are not the hobbies of normal people and is quite sad." There is a no personal attacks policy on Wikipedia and it is your responsibility to deal with this kind of behavior. 77.42.183.110 (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been name calling too. You might both stop making personal attacks and try to talk about the sources instead. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ceedjee

For info, he wasn't reverting unsourced POV, he was repeatedly inserting a redlink to the See also section to make some kind of point. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I would have handled it otherwise but it was 3rr and so blockable. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Number 57, you are involved editor; so if you think your bad faith is invisible, you must consider other are stupid.

Dale, don't forget to block all who made 3RR.

Ceedjee (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

guns of August

Here's what I saw on my watchlist today. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean this.  – iridescent 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ANI 'n AN. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this was AN. – iridescent 19:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A later diff, yes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you...

Thank you for your help and quick action... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sock Help WIth TyrusThomas4lyf

There's an obvious sock of multiply blocked user TyrusThomas4lyf at 99.145.217.208 (talk · contribs · logs) and making the exact same edits as his previous socks, no talk page edits, no justifications, just edit warring across multiple articles to put in his POV (and false allegations of sockpuppetry [9]).

I bring it to you off-ANI because he's removing the ANI threads about him, as seen here [10] and 5-6 other times. I appreciate your help. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw, blocked 2 weeks. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, he was a persistent little bugger. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fast too, it takes quick keyboard skills to break 3rr on ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Kanabekobaton

See also: User talk:Kanabekobaton/Archive 1#April 2008

Not using edit summaries is not a blockable offense. Please unblock. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He was not blocked for not using edit summaries. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

He's not required to discuss his non-controversial edits, either. You've already admitted that he's not doing anything wrong. What the hell do you think you're doing here? -- Ned Scott 04:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "admit" he's not doing anything wrong. You sound angry and thoughtless. Please calm down. When you have done, I'll be happy to talk about this with you. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I am angry, but the one being thoughtless is you. This block does not help the situation in any way, and is likely to inflame the situation. You're an admin, not a caveman who can only beat things with your club. -- Ned Scott 04:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to answer this with User:Coppertwig/Techniques for handling emotions when editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How does one inflame the situation when the party involved makes no reaction of any sort? There was no reply in the months headed into my opening of the AN. There was no reply during the several hours of discussion prior to the block, although hundreds of edits were made in that time. There has been no reply after the block was imposed, even though one of the usual editing periods has come and gone. That should say something in and of itself. DarkAudit (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I still don't agree with what has happened, but that's no excuse for how I acted. I should have stepped away from the situation sooner. My apologies. -- Ned Scott 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks so much Ned, no worries here. I do wish we'd hear from Kanabekobaton. If there were some way to know he'd at least stop marking all his edits as minor and then, either make the odd, human edit summary or pithy remark on his talk page, I'd unblock straight off and happily so. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko

Looking for a logged on admin to help with Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Soccermeko(10th). He's gotten pretty active, reverting the rollbacks of his edits, and editing the sockpuppet report to try to remove his current IP from the notice.
Kww (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for assistance. Kww just doesn't get it. He can't be selfish when someone is providing further information. 4.129.70.150 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxymoron83 beat me to it, blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've lengthened it to 3 days. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw. I really wish people would take the proposal seriously to be able to protect articles against IP ranges ... life would be much simpler if we could just protect the Nicole Wray articles against 4.128.0.0/16 and 4.129.0.0/16, and I don't think it would cause much problem for anyone but Soccermeko. There have only been a handful of legitimate edits to any of those articles in the last year.
Kww (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That'll likely happen one day. Meantime, semi-protection of low edit articles can help. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Will you please discuss admin actions you contest with the blocking admin in the future before changing them instead of attempting to start a wheel war? There was no new evidence after the user has been blocked, the blocking duration was well considered based on the nature of the IP address, and no immediate action required since the user was blocked. --Oxymoron⁸³ 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a block extension on an IP was at all a wheel war and will steadfastly disagree with you on that characterization, IP blocks are extended without discussion for sundry reasons every day. I contested nothing with you as the blocking admin. However, please forgive me for trampling in and change it back if you like, or I will do it for you. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that the person behind the edits should be blocked for a loooong period, but this isn't done by long blocks on individual IPs. I can see no IP that was used for more than a couple of hours (~ 4), and a longer block will only block unrelated editors. The 31 hour block had already the sockpuppetry agio in it and is rather too long than too short. --Oxymoron⁸³ 21:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't delete!

Please do not delete the Federal Reporter articles. There truly hasn't been any consensus reached one way or the other whether Wikipedia should have the content. There's an ongoing AfD. And, the articles can be transwiki'd, which is different from Special:Export. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for speaking up! Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like Openjurist started a thread on Wikisource already (here). I think the best option is to see how that pans out. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The articles pages must go, but how they go is another thing altogether. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OpenJurist F.2d and F.3d articles.

Gwen,

you wrote: "I'm planning on deleting these A7 as a batch in a few hours unless... Gwen Gale (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)" http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Openjurist

About the F.2d and F.3d articles that OpenJurist wrote.

Before you delete them , I wanted to propose that we move them to wikisource as you yourself have suggested and MZMcBride has as well.

"I do agree this content likely doesn't belong on Wikipedia (WP:NOT, WP:N) but would be so helpful on Wikisource. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)"

MZMcBride: "All of this is to say that perhaps Wikisource is the best place to contribute what you want to contribute."

Openjurist (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I reviewed Wikisource and found that there are several thousand F.2d opinions: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=f.2d&go=Go

and several more thousand F.3d opinions http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=f.3d&go=Go

Openjurist (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, this is not at all startling. However, as a project there, maybe you could look them over and add anything that's missing or lacking? Also they could be linked as external sources from the global article here (if they aren't already). Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen - There seems to be some discussion going on here that I thought you should be apprised of.

---Gwen, What do you think of this... There seems to be lots of discussion about noteworthyness... and you seem to be of the opinion that they should go to Wikisource. How about a compromise: Making it so the List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series (and Third Series - not yet created) stays on Wikipedia so that there will be ready access to the volumes through Wikiepdia's system and then - the Pages of Case names will be moved/redone on Wikisource. This way the cases are easy to access and easily found but they don't take up Wikipedia's resources. I could set up the pages onto Wikisource and then each of the pages that have been created already could get forwarded to Wikisource in the appropriate manner. Openjurist (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest the list(s) of opinions also be put on Wikisource, with a root link in Federal_Reporter. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

---If you give us a little time ... we are working on making F.2d and F.3d the way you want it - please let us get our templates formatted for Wikisource and get the information up on their system and then I/we can make the appropriate changes here. I plan on working on it this weekend and early next week. Openjurist (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

about grand roi's ANI thread

Seeing his comment made about half an hour after you made your comment, I doubt that GRC has plans to take the ANI thread to hearth: "(..) I am going to ignore this thread and any other nonsense they start (..)" [11]. I guess that we will see him again on ANI on a few months, with a very similar problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Maybe he will take the thread to hearth :) Fun aside, yes, it's likely this will come up again but I hope GRC begins to understand, he's doing more harm than help to his own aims. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Faking information

Hi Gwen this user LAUGH90 purposely lied about a source and changed the birthdate of Lil' Kim and a number of other details. This is the 2nd time this has occurred. It's not like he got information from an unreliable source he got the information from an unreliable source and put it down twice. Trying to make it seem like there were two different sources when it was the same source.Mcelite (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mcelite. Could you please give me 2 or 3 diffs? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gwen. He did it again today...This time change the sources which are not reliable and has been consistent on doing this.Mcelite (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not "faking" or "vandalism" to cite a blog, but it's also not a reliable source. Moreover, if this is what you're talking about, that's not a blog and could be an acceptable source. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not the first time NNDB has messed up before. They also don't have an authorship. It's more of a fan website for celebrities.

Yes that's true, you can most likely cite other sources as more reliable :) Gwen Gale (talk) 06:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Assistance?

Gwen - can you take a look at my talk page and Tobacco and render some advice? I've not ever done a CSD redirect move, but this looks like a potential candidate. In point of fact, I've avoided them because they seem like voodoo. I don't want to do the wrong thing here. Any advice is appreciated. I'm OK with doing it myself if I just know for sure what I'm doing; any reading matter you can point me to would be appreciated. (I'm not necessarily asking you to do anything other than teach me what I should be doing...or directing me at someone who can.) Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Follow ChyranandChloe's instructions. Delete Tobacco (CSD G6) and move Tobacco (agriculture) to Tobacco , making sure "update redirects" stays checked. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about a disambiguation page?  Frank  |  talk  22:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco (disambiguation) is already where it should be so after the move. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to be dense, but it redirects to Tobacco...  Frank  |  talk  22:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't done with that last post. Ok then, 5 easy steps :)

• Delete CSD G6 Tobacco (disambiguation)
• Move Tobacco to Tobacco (disambiguation)
• Delete CSD G6 Tobacco
• Move Tobacco (agriculture) to Tobacco (make sure "update redirects" stays checked)
• Put {{otheruses}} at the top of Tobacco

How does that look? Gwen Gale (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Talon the cat

Hi Gwen Gale at one point you blocked me. I understand why. I do try to make articles, but with school and everything it is hard. I don’t think I can make much articles on Wikipedia. I thank you for blocking me I understand blocking someone can be hard, and ^Skeletal S.L.J.C.O.A.A.A.T.R. _Soul just is trying to make sure I am not blocked if he says anything mean he probable does not mean it. Is there some way do delete me from Wikipedia? If so please do.--Talon (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there personal info you'd like deleted from the history? If not, the easiest thing to do is put up a {{retired}} tag on your user page (I can do this for you) and don't edit. This way, if you want to come back some day to edit articles (please do if you like :) you can start editing again straight off or, only if you keep Talon the cat inactive, you can open a new account. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Great improvement of MuLinux article

Your contribution to MuLinux article gave me new hope. Recently Wikipedia changed to battlefield. The editors today simply delete articles without trying to improve them. Keep up that good work. Megaribi (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Supercharge (band)

Perhaps if the article had been given a chance to assert the band's notability, which is, as far as I remember, quite adequately sourceable? --Rodhullandemu 22:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the only thing notable about them was they were signed by Virgin 34 years ago then dropped when they didn't sell records. Doing lots of live shows isn't notable in itself. I didn't find any meaningful sources at all, no coverage other than their own marketing efforts. I'm open to working with them in userspace though, there might be something notable about them but I haven't seen it yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

They meet at least two of the criteria in WP:BAND. It's just that you wouldn't get that from the article in the state it was in. So much for a quiet night watching Special:Log/newusers! --Rodhullandemu 23:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be more than happy to restore and help tidy it! What are the two criteria? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got a copy in my own space. Since I was there at the time, and saw them on numerous occasions, I know where to look for the sources. Fulfills criteria 6 (Ozzie Yue) and 7 (biggest R&B outfit in Liverpool in the mid 70s). Meanwhile, I'm exhausted, and my current GA will have to wait. Sheesh. I won't bother posting to WP:AN for my own protection again. --Rodhullandemu 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, there's no rush and the article's not salted or anything. Put any notable content up when you have time, let me know if you need help and in the meantime, it's on my watchlist. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I've now spent a half hour looking into this topic, hoping to write an encyclopedic article for them myself. According to them (and I believe this), they were signed to Virgin records in about 1976 but didn't sell many records and were very unhappy with the oucome overall. Ever since, the band has had a somewhat shifting membership under a rather steadfast leader and seem to have done a couple of thousand (?) live shows mostly in the UK and western Europe as an R&B act. Through it all, one member has become notable through other projects. So far I've seen no reliable sources which assert they ever defined a local sound (in Liverpool or anywhere else). R&B is highly recognizeable and popular with live acts in many countries. Supercharge didn't "invent" R&B and making a living whilst playing live R&B is not notable. Meanwhile the article was wholly overtaken by IPs who clearly had a COI. I deleted the topic as an A7 because after skiving away the empty marketing jargon and all the bolded names of non-encyclopedic members, there were no assertions of importance or significance to be had. Lastly, most if not all of the sources I can find online are websites trying to sell the band or its recordings, or user-posting social networking and music sites. I would like to help but I have yet to find independent, meaningful coverage on them. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Half an hour to go through 8,750 Google hits? I'd spend that time trying to source ONE fact. And you don't have the books on Liverpool music that I do. --Rodhullandemu 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu, do you want me to restore the article? Say the word and I'll be happy to do it. All the best, Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

vase images

[[:Image:Vase2r 800.jpg|thumb|left|I like this, sort of Celtic by the Mediterranean!]] Hi Gwen Gale, I was hoping to figure out for myself how to add the license information, and descriptions, to the images I down loaded on my user page [12], but have no idea. A little help would be much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! See your talk page! Gwen Gale (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Creative commons should be okay. I would like to be credited if anyone should ever use the images (which seems unlikely); but, other than that, I am not concerned about use. (There is no one who could actually copy the pottery itself.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind help, which is much appreciated. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ms. Gale

Hi, since I'm not a admin, can you block i.p. address 75.60.226.37. So far, all this user has done is blank a page and replace content with vulgar language. thanks, --Master of Pies (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's see if it carries on. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Soccermeko

Think we are the point where talk page semi-protection for a few weeks is in order? Talk:Nicole Wray (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) You'd have to hit the talk page for Nicole Wray discography, too.
Kww (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Much as I didn't like doing it, I've SP'd both for 2 months. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the nicest solution, but maybe he will finally get the hint. Of course, he isn't above using named accounts, but at least that's a little slower for him.
Kww (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

At least those can be blocked rather much on sight. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your MySpace Page

Thanks for the heads up. 75.142.140.153 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

For unblocking Malleus Faturom you must have balls of steel. I was sorely tempted to do the same myself. People will disagree, but I won't be one of them. Well done. Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In itself the block was ok but owing to its length bore watching in the aftermath. The blocking admin wasn't here to see all the back and forth on M's talk page, someone asked me to have a look and I did what I thought would be most helpful over all. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

CSD

I have to say your page about CSD is one of the most informative and humorous pages about policy I have read on Wikipedia. I think I'm going to have to point people to your page when they get mad that I suggested their article for an speedy deletion. Whispering 05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta! Pinch it if ya like! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 07:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you were thinking though, by all means, link to it. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 09:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It's all Greek to me

Bah, humbug!

Ahem, I mentersay: (i) A "topic" might mean "lepidoptery in the Malayan peninsula" and an editor exploring such a topic but not venturing beyond it would I think be welcome and anyway wouldn't be regarded as an "SPA". (ii) Whatever "topic" means -- even "the band me and my brother formed last night, with his girlfriend playing triangle" -- it's not the topic but the article that gets deleted. -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh, truth be told, it's a bit Anglo Saxon 'n Gaelic and it's the topic that's deemed CSD: A weak article on an encyclopedic topic might be re-written, but a wonderfully written article on the topic of an unknown garage band in Tunbridge Wells won't keep the topic from being speedied ;) Anyway since I rewrote it I've been getting very few "Why did you do that!" posts here, it's not only the words but how they flow, ya know ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

I don't know who Fclass is. I'm not related to him (or her) in any way. Auto Racing Fan (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you please take the sockpuppet thing off the userpage? I'm not Fclass and I have no idea who Fclass is. I've never met the person. Auto Racing Fan (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Auto Racing Fan is requesting an unblock. Is there a SSP or CHU page I can refer to when reviewing the block, or was the evidence behavioral? Thanks in advance, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Having looked, I can see some similarities. They both like to edit in articles about racetracks, they both have an interest in music genres, specifically electronic, and they both have an interest in black/white racial issues. It's a pretty specific constellation of interests. And also some of Auto Racing Fan's early edits show a suspicious level of familiarity with Wikipedia. Still, I think this is worth an RFCU, since Auto Racing Fan's edits all look in good faith and I haven't seen any personal attacks, which is what fclass was blocked for. Have I missed anything? Mangojuice^talk 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded - there's enough time gap from when Fclass was blocked that this could be random coincidence. A checkuser should be able to tell unambiguously and pretty quickly. I am going to file one now... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the_swamp@UNIX.cups for a bit :) It's the quack test, I know Fclass and that's him. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Quack test has been known to falsely mallard before... The CU can't hurt. Either it is, in which case a rangeblock may be additionally useful, or it isn't, in which case the goose isn't cooked. 8-) Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, Gwen, was the one-year block on Fclass this time around intentional (given that the prior block was an indef)? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please see this AN thread from a week ago. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is Fclass but I've asked Alison to have a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• She beat me to it. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Auto_Racing_Fan. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Very good block, then - and a good eye. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Good catch! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)